Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

River Don (Pollution)

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from local interests on pollution in the River Don.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend has had representations from the Don District Salmon Fishery Board and the Aberdeen and District Angling Association.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very widespread concern at the deteriorating condition of the River Don? Is he satisfied that the river purification boards have sufficient evidence to compel private industries which pollute the river to clean up their discharges? If the industries concerned are unable to meet the financial costs involved, will funds be made available to assist in cleaning up the Don? Can the hon. Gentleman say that this will be unaffected by the statement about cuts in public expenditure?

Mr. Younger: I am well aware of the difficulties on the River Don. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) has drawn them to my attention on numerous occasions. Representatives of the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee visited Aberdeen on 10th and 11th May and discussed the position with various interests including the fishery board and the angling association. I await their report, and any recommendations

for further remedial measures that it may contain will have urgent consideration.

Oil Industry Developments

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number and nature of sites considered by his Department as suitable bases for oil-related developments.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Sites will be required for many kinds of development. Possible refinery sites in Scotland have been studied. Recently my Department issued a discussion paper about sites for building oil production platforms. Sites for other purposes are kept under review.

Mr. Douglas: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Will he consider the wider dissemination of the information that he has produced in the discussion paper, especially the possibility of making it available to hon. Members, who have experienced considerable difficulty in getting it? Secondly, will he undertake to give an assurance that no one in his Department is associated financially with companies which may have an interest in developing these sites or in any other oil-related developments?

Mr. Campbell: On the first matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, this is a continuous process of trying to assist local authorities and, where helpful, with consultative documents because of new techniques and new methods continually being introduced as well as the new exploration and discoveries as exploration proceeds north and west. The hon. Gentleman's second point raises a much wider question which I could not possibly answer now, though I recognise his concern.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Will my right hon. Friend clarify to the people of Scotland the reasons why the heavy construction work, especially that involved in building oil rigs, consequential upon the North Sea oil industry cannot be done more easily in those parts of Scotland where there is a tradition of heavy engineering and where there is still labour available?

Mr. Campbell: This is one of the matters that we wish to see fitted together. I was glad to enable planning permission


to be given at Ardyne Point, which is an area near enough to Glasgow and the high unemployment zones. The consultative document on platform production to which the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) referred brings out the particular conditions and requirements which are needed and considers without any kind of commitment the parts of the coast where these operations can be carried out.

Mr. Ross: Apart from responding to inquiries of individual local authorities, surely it is becoming more and more obvious that we require a much more comprehensive planning approach to this problem. Do important matters of this kind come under the recent remit to Lord Polwarth?

Mr. Campbell: Yes. Naturally, because it is related to the oil industry, this is one of the matters with which he will be concerned and on which he will be co-ordinating. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, as this new industry develops more and more techniques, more and more requirements appear. It is the business of the Government to assist in every way. This is what we are doing.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Did my right hon. Friend notice the statement in The Times last Saturday by Ian Peters, the executive director of Onshore Investments, the parent company of Nordport, that it now controls the staggering total of 40,000 acres in the Shetland Isles and the implied threat that it would not sell this land at an excessive profit unless it was left with no alternative by the Shetland County Council? Will he keep an eye on the situation and ensure that no financial group, however well connected, will be able to undermine the strongly supported plans of the Shetland County Council?

Mr. Campbell: I am aware of reports of this kind in the Press. A Private Bill, promoted by the Shetland County Council, which is at present before Parliament, is concerned with these and other matters.

Mr. Maclennan: What does the Secretary of State mean by saying that Lord Polwarth will co-ordinate planning? Does he mean that the noble Lord will

be sitting in judgment on planning inquiries and giving his personal decision, or is it still with the Secretary of State? Is this a double banking of planning? What does it amount to? When the Dunnet Bay inquiry comes before him, who will finally judge on it?

Mr. Campbell: I said that my noble Friend would be co-ordinating on the whole question of platform construction. The planning responsibilities, laid down by the Scottish Planning Acts, clearly fall upon the Secretary of State for Scotland. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed that it is necessary to help and assist with advice before planning applications are put in. It is not possible to state categorically that any particular project will go to a certain site until it has been through the planning procedures, and there is a great deal of help, advice and information which can be given before that.

Blind Persons(Parking Facilities)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the practice of affording discs for free parking for disabled persons to blind persons who are also disabled; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to extend the disabled persons' badge scheme to blind persons. The working of the scheme is, however, being reviewed, and the possibility of extending it to blind persons will be one of the matters to be considered.

Mr. Dempsey: Will the Under-Secretary take into consideration the fact that blind persons—I am talking of people who are completely blind—who are self-employed require to carry the tools of their work from house to house, place to place and town to town, that they are in need of constant supervision and attention and have to be escorted into and out of cars and buildings? Surely in any caring society the least we can do for people who suffer such a tragic loss of faculty is to make available to them the same parking facilities as are available to other disabled persons.

Mr. Younger: I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's great concern to do all we


can to help blind people, but when they travel in cars they are obviously, by the very nature of things, accompanied by other persons. If a blind person has a disability which would enable him to have such a badge if he were not blind, he can be considered for exemption in the normal way. A blind person in a car will always be accompanied. That is the reason for the distinction.

Edinburgh Opera House

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on the Edinburgh Opera House.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Edinburgh Corporation is still considering the proposals for Government assistance for the Castle Terrace theatre development which were put to it in my Department's letter of 26th January.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the project affected by the Chancellor's statement on Monday?

Mr. Campbell: No, Sir.

Mr. Edward Taylor: If the Government are to consider spending millions of pounds on a new opera house in Edinburgh, may I ask them to bear in mind the equal importance of spending a lesser but appropriate sum to upgrade Hampden Park to make it a suitable site for the holding of international football matches? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that far more people watch football than go to the opera?

Mr. Campbell: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern with Hampden Park, but this is a quite separate question.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: If the Edinburgh Opera House is not affected by the cuts in local authority expenditure announced on Monday, may I ask what other cultural, recreational or public buildings will be affected in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: This project has not yet been approved. The Government have put forward proposals stating how much they would be prepared to give by way of a grant, but the project itself has not yet been approved by Edinburgh Corporation.

Faroese Fisheries

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will

now make a further statement following negotiations with Danish and Faroese officials in Edinburgh on Thursday 26th April.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The United Kingdom has agreed, along with the other main nations fishing in the Faroes area, to take part in discussions on an international catch limitation agreement. These will probably take place in the second half of June, and my right hon. Friend has invited representatives of the British trawling industry to attend as advisers.

Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he reassure the House that it is the Government's intention to retain the full catching powers of the British fleet off the Faroes? In addition, will such implements as the creep cutter anti-warp cutting device be available to Scottish trawlers operating off the Faroes should it become necessary?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that that situation will not arise. I must make it clear that both the Danes and the Faroese have attempted to approach this matter in a sensible and constructive manner. From our point of view it is only the principle of an international catch limitation scheme that is desirable. That is all we have agreed at present. In our view, the object is to prevent any substantial increase in total fishing effort off the Faroes.

Mr. McNamara: May I ask whether the Government's relationship with the Danes and Faroese has been brought to the attention of the Icelandic Government, because it would seem to afford a happy omen in the dispute?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I think that lessons can be drawn. We must approach these matters on a multilateral basis and get agreement on that basis. I am glad to tell the House that this matter is being approached sensibly, and I hope that lessons will be drawn elsewhere.

Abortions

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many abortions and live births, respectively, were recorded in Scotland in 1972; and what were the comparable figures in 1970.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): The number of abortions notified was 5,254 in 1970 and 7,600 in 1972. The number of live births was 87,335 in 1970 and 78,550 in 1972.

Mr. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the operation of the Abortion Act in Scotland, and has he any plans to review it?

Mr. Monro: The Lane Committee is reviewing it. There is no abuse of the Abortion Act in Scotland at present.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister examine the special edition of last week's Daily Record on the working of the Abortion Act in the city of Glasgow and take that into account in any decision he may take?

Mr. Monro: I have studied that report very carefully indeed.

Mr. Small: Will the hon. Gentleman distinguish how many abortions took place in the private sector in private clinics compared with the National Health Service?

Mr. Monro: The figure is rather less than 1·5 per cent. in private clinics. It is a very small total indeed in Scotland.

Hospitals (Peel and Huntlyburn)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a statement about the general improvement of facilities at Peel Hospital and the state of construction at Huntlyburn.

Mr. Monro: The board of management for the Scottish Borders Hospitals is formulating revised proposals for improvements at Peel Hospital and these will be considered by the regional hospital board. A start to the first phase of the new hospital at Huntlyburn is expected in about three years' time.

Mr. Steel: Will the Under-Secretary undertake that, in the event of any continuing disagreement between the board of management for the Borders Hospitals and the regional hospital board, he will use the good offices of his Department to get a firm statement as soon as possible on how public money will be spent

both at Peel Hospital and at the Huntlyburn site?

Mr. Monro: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The need for improvement at Peel Hospital is not in dispute. The issue is the extent, cost and timing of the improvements consistent with the life of the hospital. The next stage is a meeting of the regional hospital board early next month at which I hope these differences of opinion can be resolved.

Rent Rebates

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue guidance to local authorities on the implementation of Section 111 of the Financial Provisions (Scotland) Act.

Mr. Younger: This was done last summer.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been brought to my notice that different local authorities are putting different interpretations on this scheme? Is it the case that the Minister has concurred that people filling in rent rebate scheme forms do not need to say where their investment or deposit accounts are, but have only to report the interest they receive, and that it is on the basis of that interest that a decision is made whether to grant a rent rebate? Will the Minister make sure that local authorities are conforming to the regulations which he is reported to have given to them? If he has not done so, will he say why not?

Mr. Younger: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is interest that is received from any investment that is taken into account in assessments for rent rebate, and not any capital sum. I have had no complaints that local authorities are not correctly interpreting the advice and instructions given to them about dealing with rent rebate forms, but I shall be glad to look into any matters which the hon. Member may care to raise with me.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: As regards the operation of this and other sections of the Act, may I ask whether, as no statutory return is made of the number of people in receipt of allowances, particularly in the private sector, the Minister will consider an inquiry to monitor how


the scheme is progressing so that we can assess the real effects of the Act?

Mr. Younger: It is desirable that we should have as much information as possible about the number of people receiving rebates and allowances of various kinds. It is early days yet to think of making a full inquiry into the matter, but if there is difficulty in getting information about this from local authorities I shall be prepared to look into the question of how we can get better information for the benefit of Opposition Members.

Private Building (Planning Decision Reversals)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many planning appeals in the last two years he has granted which reversed the decision of a local authority not to agree to the zoning of land for private speculative building; and how many acres were involved.

Mr. Younger: Nine, involving 166 acres.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, in the teeth of opposition from my local authority, his right hon. Friend granted planning permission in respect of an area which that authority had zoned as green belt. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when his right hon. Friend decides to override the wishes of a local authority in this day and age, when housing costs are so high, he is not only giving planning permission to private developers to build but, at today's costs, also giving them a licence to print money?

Mr. Younger: All such applications which come before my right hon. Friend are considered on the same basis one with another. They are considered in the light of the circular sent to local authorities in 1967 giving guidance on the way in which they should approach this kind of problem. I do not think this is an excessive total. A total of 166 acres has been allowed as a result of appeals, but no fewer than 1,500 acres are required to be zoned each year for private house developments. The most important thing is to get as much private development going as possible to meet the vast demand by people who wish to buy their own homes.

Mr. Ross: How does this compare with the number of decisions reversed in the preceding two years?

Mr. Younger: I could not answer that question without notice, but I do not think that 166 acres out of the usual annual zoning of 1,500 acres is a very large amount.

Collieries (Planning Applications)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for planning permission he has received for the sinking of new collieries in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: None.

Mr. Hunter: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that there is too much indifference about the future size of the coal mining industry in Scotland? Does he not also think that the Secretary of State should take a greater interest in this matter, particularly when it is known that new sinkings have been considered in other parts of the United Kingdom? Did the hon. Gentleman see a report that the Minister of State had warned Scottish people to avoid an oil neurosis? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be better for Scotland if more people were affected by a pro-coal neurosis, instead of an anti-coal hysteria as displayed by one of my colleagues a few days ago?

Mr. Younger: I should not like to comment on that last point, except to say that I do not think anyone would ever accuse me of suffering from anti-coal hysteria. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that, to enable a comprehensive, sensible energy policy to be followed, these questions have to be looked at in the context of our energy policy as a whole. That is why the principal responsibility for matters of this kind lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I keep a close watch on the effects on the Scottish economy of all sorts of developments, but the question of a fuel policy as such is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the declining


labour force in the mining industry in Scotland, and will he undertake to hold an inquiry into the effects of miners having to move from job to job and pit to pit? It is a disgrace that men who want to maintain as comprehensive a labour force as possible are asked to behave like gipsies.

Mr. Younger: When a considerable number of people are likely to lose their jobs because of pit closures, we try to offer alternative employment in other industries, but many of the men wish to continue in the trade which they have learned from their youth onwards. That is why some of them feel that they want to move to other coalfields, and all we can do is to make it as comfortable and as easy as possible for them to do so.

Mr. Sillars: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if there were a comprehensive energy policy, it would be advantageous to coal? Will he say when there will be such a comprehensive energy policy?

Mr. Younger: That is what one might call a leading question. The point I was making was that it was not my responsibility to comment on the balance between different fuels or on the question of a comprehensive fuel policy. Those are matters for my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Can the hon. Gentleman now answer the question which I asked him some time ago and tell me the amount of money that is being allocated under Section 9 of the Coal Industry Act to prevent further pit closures in the Scottish coalfields? Would it not be more prudent to prevent further pit closures, and also to consider the possibility of new sinkings?

Mr. Younger: A lot has been done by successive Governments to try to ease these problems when they arise, but matters of this sort should be referred to the Department of Trade and Industry, which is the Department responsible for energy generally.

Crofting Townships (Road Grants)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the criteria of eligibility for grant assistance under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act 1897 of roads leading to crafting

townships, taking into account the trend towards individual crofters working more than one crofting unit.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is viewing the criteria in the light of current circumstances, but I cannot yet say whether any change will be justified.

Mr. Maclennan: That is a welcome reply from the Minister. Can he say whether the review will be affected by Monday's announcement of public expenditure cuts? Can he also say whether, in the review, he will look at the question of the building of a bridge over the River Oykel, which has been frustrated by the vested interests of landlords because of their alleged fishing interests? This proposal has been put forward by the local authority in the area as suitable for a grant under the Act in the light of the fact that the Army OPMAC bridging scheme cannot go ahead as agreed because of the opposition of the landlord.

Mr. Younger: I should not, without notice and without a chance to look into the details, like to agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the position relating to the Oykel bridge. We are reviewing the working of the Act in the light of current priorities. When we have done that we shall be able to tell whether any change is needed and whether any change would be affected by the expenditure announcement made earlier this week.

Mr. Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it would be disastrous socially if there were cuts in the programme for Highland roads because of the Government's announcement? Will the hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the report issued by the Highlands and Islands Development Board and to the recent transport paper, particularly that part of it dealing with roads? May I ask the hon. Gentleman to give us, at some time, an indication of the Government's reaction to that paper and say whether the Government accept the general principles set out in the portion of it dealing with roads?

Mr. Younger: I have read the paper with great interest but my Department and I have not had time to study it completely. I agree that it is very important. More road works are going on in the Highlands now than probably


ever before. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed—if he did, I am sure that he was as glad as I was—that my right hon. Friend was able to say that all road developments associated with North Sea oil would be exempted from the cuts announced on Monday. That is important from the point of view of Scotland and the Highlands.

Mr. Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates the concern that is felt in these areas. It would be disastrous to make cuts of this kind in a programme affecting people already there and working in the traditional way while at the same time things are to flow freely for oil. The Government should be very careful about what they do and say.

Mr. Younger: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. To get the record straight, may I make it clear that I have announced no cuts at all in this programme.

Meat Production

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the beef and veal, mutton and lamb, pork, and bacon and ham marketed in Great Britain is produced in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The available figures relate to total supplies on the United Kingdom market, excluding canned imports. Scottish production amounts to about one-seventh of beef and veal, one-tenth of mutton and lamb and one-twentieth of total pigmeat.

Sir J. Gilmour: Do not these figures show what an important part Scotland has to play in feeding the United Kingdom and saving imports? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it is right to save capital grants which could help to increase production in Scotland?

Mr. Buchanan-Smth: I agree that the figures show the tremendous part that Scottish agriculture can play in serving the needs of the British housewife. We have given considerable encouragement through our announcements at the price reviews over the last three years, and the evidence is that Scottish farmers are prepared to respond to the incentives given to them. I appreciate the point about capital grants, but one of the main sources of capital for farming is from income, as it has always been, and the effect of

greatly improved income over the last few years has, I hope, helped investment in the industry.

Mr. Strang: Has the Minister read the statement yesterday by the President of the Scottish NFU? Surely he must accept that production grants are an important source of income, particularly for hill farmers. How can he justify the decision to cut them in view of the Government's alleged policy of expansion of agriculture in Scotland?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the whole picture, at the greatly improved price incentives which farmers have received as a result of our policies. Therefore, one must balance what they obtain in prices against production grants. But I confirm that there is no doubt in principle that production grants play an important part, as they played a big part in our negotiations over Europe.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider taking into public ownership those areas of land which are likely to be the most suitable for substantial developments associated with North Sea oil.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Local authorities and other public bodies have power to buy land in advance of development in appropriate cases. I will consider any such proposals on their merits.

Mr. Strang: If the Secretary of State accepts that certain key areas of land should be developed in association with North Sea oil, surely he can best ensure and control those developments by owning the land himself. Does he not realise that, if he allows those areas to be held by private individuals or companies, they will hold to ransom Scottish firms and other firms in the way that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) indicated in connection with Shetland? Can he give us the elementary assurance, which should not be necessary, that no Scottish Minister will have any financial interest in any of the enterprises developing on these sites?

Mr. Campbell: On the first point, I regard this as a combination, a partnership, of the local authorities and private industry. Where the Government have


been able to play a part—as, for example, at Peterhead, where the Government are the harbour authority—we have acted quickly to help with oil development. But it needs private industry as well as local authorities and the Government to do the best for this emerging oil industry. As for financial interests, this matter has been taken up by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and he will get a reply in due course.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is often as much criticism of the Secretary of State or the Government as a whole owning land and either developing or not developing as there is of private companies or local authorities?

Mr. Campbell: I recognise what my hon. Friend has to say.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this country is in a seller's market in this matter and that we need not fall over ourselves to try to ensure that every bit of country in Scotland is developed for this purpose? Would he recognise that we cannot always trust local authorities to see that the proper thing is done? Would he remember that, when we are talking of environmental questions, we have much more in mind than mere scenic beauty, important though that may be? Would he ensure, for example, that, before dredging of some of the sea flats is permitted, proper hydrological studies are undertaken to ensure that irreparable damage is not done to our coasts?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has raised one of the important aspects of the development of this new industry —the effect on the environment. This is one reason why a new council is being set up on which there will be persons who have knowledge and experience of environmental matters. In certain circumstances, it can be as important to Scottish interests to protect the coastline or to protect the sea bed from dredging of the kind that he has mentioned as to have a development in that place.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman attach considerable urgency to the question raised in the last

part of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang)—namely, the vested interest in oil and its development of Lord Polwarth and his family? It is important that this matter should be cleared up with the greatest urgency. It is not enough to say that we should wait for the Prime Minister's statement. We should have a statement on this matter before the recess.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will realise that this is not a matter with which I can deal in a supplementary question at this stage.

Council House Sales

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement about the progress of the sale of local authority houses to sitting tenants.

Mr. Younger: I have been informed of the completion of the sale of 917 houses to sitting tenants by 63 local authorities.

Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware that these figures are welcome but that they represent very slow progress? Will he take more urgent action to encourage local authorities to offer houses for sale to their sitting tenants and so help the spread of property ownership, which all of us on this side believe in? Does he agree that this is the only way in which many young couples in Scotland will be able to own their own houses?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is scope for considerable expansion of council house sales. I should add to my original answer that, in the new towns, 2,025 houses have been sold since 1970. The Scottish Special Housing Association has now started sales and I understand that it has sold about 250. I agree that the vast demand particularly on the part of young couples in Scotland to own their own homes could be greatly assisted if local authorities helped in this way by allowing them to buy the homes in which they at present live.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that, because of the number of people who are homeless and on the housing lists, many local authorities cannot afford to sell council houses? Is


he further aware that many young couples who want to buy their own homes cannot manage the down payment and certainly cannot get a mortgage? If he will come clean on this and tell the House where they can get a mortgage and down payment, he will be answering the question.

Mr. Younger: If one wants a mortgage, one can go to the building societies. They are giving out mortgages right now to people who want them, and I hope that they have the hon. Gentleman's encouragement in doing so. As for the waiting lists, it makes no difference to a waiting list if a family which is at present living in a house and is likely to carry on living in it on a rented basis decides to buy it and is given permission to do so and continues to live in it. It makes no difference to the waiting list because the council receives money from that house which it can use to build a house for a homeless family.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: What is my hon. Friend's attitude towards local authorities seeking to dispose by sale of vacant council houses in respect of which I believe the matter is in his discretion?

Mr. Younger: Any applications of that sort would be considered on their merits, taking into account the availability of houses in the area and the size of waiting lists. There are circumstances in which this can be a very helpful thing for all concerned.

Mr. Robert Hughes: How can the Minister be so naive as to say that the sale of a house to a sitting tenant makes no difference to the waiting list? Is he not aware that if, instead of this obsession with selling council houses, he were to act to control and keep down the prices of private property, sitting tenants could buy outside the council house market, thereby releasing houses for people on the waiting list?

Mr. Younger: But the great difficulty for young people starting to buy their first home is to get a home they can afford to buy at the low price they can afford to pay. One of the ways of achieving this is to allow them to buy the council house in which they live. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind: either he is in favour of

encouraging young couples to own their own homes or he is not. I should like him to come clean on this and make his view clear.

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to introduce measures to give council tenants a statutory right to buy their homes after living in them for a certain time, subject to a right of appeal by local authorities on the grounds of specified local housing problems.

Mr. Younger: I share my hon. Friend's wish to see more council tenants being given the opportunity of buying their houses, and I hope that local authorities will come increasingly to realise that this is in their own interest as well as that of their tenants, but I am not persuaded at present that any new statutory rights should be created.

Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend keep this matter very much under review? Does he not agree that it is a disgraceful fact that Aberdeen, Glasgow and Dundee have not sold one council house to their tenants, and that the Scottish sales figure that he has just given—917—compares shamefully with the English figure of over 16,000 houses? Does he not agree that the dogmatic Labour-controlled authorities are frustrating the natural and right feeling of many families in Scotland which want to own their own houses?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very regrettable that some of these local authorities are refusing to do this. All I can say is that they will have to answer to their electors, including those young couples who live in the areas concerned and who want to buy their their own house but are refused the right to do so by the action of their councils.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Has not the answer to this matter been given, certainly in Aberdeen and Glasgow, by the massive defeat of the Government's supporters in the municipal elections? People of Scotland do not want council houses to be sold. Will the Minister say how young couples starting off life can find their way on to the waiting list to qualify for buying their first home?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman knows the rules for getting on to the waiting lists of various local authorities as well as I do. The hon. Gentleman's views about the people of Scotland are strangely at variance—[Interruption.] I am not sure about the strange noise coming across to my right ear. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is no use saying that people in Scotland do not wish to buy their council houses when literally thousands are applying to do so.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Have the Government closed their minds to statutory powers in this matter?

Mr. Younger: No, I have not closed my mind to any of the alternatives, but at present it would not be right to introduce new statutory powers.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: While this might have been the subject of speeches at the recent Tory Party conference at Perth—I suppose that it was one of the few subjects raised—will the Minister at least consult some of us who know something about council schemes and the social problems which might arise from any indiscriminate instructions to local authoties that they must sell council houses?

Mr. Younger: The question of social problems has to be looked at very carefully at all times, but I am not aware of any social problems having arisen in any of the places where these houses have been sold so far.

Rents

Mr. McElhone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the maximum income of a man with a wife and two children who was paying a nil rent under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972, up to 28th April 1973.

Mr. Younger: This depends on the level of standard rent.

Mr. McElhone: While expecting that type of answer, may I apologise, first, for a rather long supplementary question—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that that statement is a hostage to fortune.

Mr. McElhone: I have made my apologies first, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), who made such a song and dance about my absence from the last Scottish Question Time, which was unavoidable—

Mr. Edward Taylor: Disgraceful.

Mr. McElhone: —stated in the Press that a large number of Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament rushed down to the House to hear the answer to one of my Questions? Will the Minister assure the House that Scottish Conservative Members are here at other Question Times?
Is it not absolutely scurrilous, to use the term of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton), for the hon. Member for Cathcart to suggest —[Interruption.]—may I have silence, please?—in a weekly column that I table the last Question to give a pat on the back to the Government? Is not this utterly reprehensible on the part of the hon. Member for Cathcart?
May I also put the pertinent question to the Minister? Out of a random survey of 100 cases from the computer in the Glasgow housing management rebate centre it was pointed out to me that 78 per cent. of the rebate cases were mainly widows, the disabled and the unemployed, and that of the other 22 per cent. many were widows or wage-stop cases. Does not that destroy the Government's arguments in regard to rebates?
May I—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—finally, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is enough.

Mr. McElhone: May I, Mr. Speaker—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I have heard it said that there is no time for a peroration in a supplementary question.

Mr. Younger: May I apologise for an excessively short answer? The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) was so anxious to bring out, which I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be anxious to bring out, was that the nil rent provisions are


producing a very valuable help to many families with low incomes and a large number of children. I understand that there are, for instance, in Glasgow, following the raising of the needs allowance, something in excess of 3,300 families which are likely to pay a nil rent in the future, and that is in addition to all those on supplementary benefit, who still get their rent covered for them.
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the rent rebate scheme is a very valuable help to many families on small incomes.

Mr. Taylor: Does not the Minister agree—

Mr. McElhone: Too long.

Mr. Taylor: —that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) has made more than the usual idiot of himself and owes my hon. Friend a personal and public apology for the fact that he said a few days before an important municipal election in Glasgow that hardly any families in Scotland—

Mr. McElhone: It is still true.

Mr. Taylor: —would pay a nil rent, when the Minister gave an answer the day after the election that thousands would pay a nil rent and has again confirmed today that many families in Glasgow pay a nil rent? Does not my hon. Friend feel that he and the people of Glasgow are owed a public apology from the hon. Member for Gorbals?

Mr. Younger: Thousands of families in Scotland will be paying a nil rent as a result of this rent rebate scheme. I know that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) has a very strong interest in these matters, but he has never managed to understand the rent rebate scheme or its benefits to the people of Scotland. I hope that he will now get down to it and understand it.

Mr. McElhone: May I suggest to the Minister that he is utterly wrong when he replies to the question of rebates? I can give him figures—I shall do so after Question Time—which prove that he is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman wished to raise a point of order.

Mr. McElhone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry for the confusion, but it is terribly important to the people whom I represent and to the constituents of other hon. Members.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should admit that he was wrong.

Mr. McElhone: In view of the very poor answers from the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member. That ends that.

Prisoners (Education Courses)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum of money spent on special courses for those detained in Scottish prisons over the last year.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Expenditure on correspondence courses in the year ended 31st March 1973 amounted to £2,605. Expenditure on other kinds of educational courses could not be ascertained without disproportionate cost to public funds.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In view of certain controversy in the prison service about the value of some of these courses, and in order to clarify the matter, will my hon. Friend say who is responsible for recommending prisoners for special courses and who is responsible for ensuring that these courses are of direct and real benefit and value to the prisoners?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The House should realise that it is provided in prison rules—I am sure that this is generally supported in the House—that prisoners who wish in their leisure time to improve their education should be given reasonable facilities for so doing. That is right.
These courses are supervised by the assistant governor, who is in charge of training, and the International Correspondence College gives periodic reports on those who are undertaking the courses.

Mr. Maclennan: Does not the Minister accept that that is a pitifully small amount of money to be spending on such courses? Does it not reflect the very


small number of people benefiting from them?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We must put this matter into the proper perspective. I am talking about correspondence courses. The initiative in a correspondence course is for the prisoner himself to volunteer to undertake it. What is much more important in education is vocational training, practical courses and evening classes, and these, and the many other ways, I should like to see extended even further.

Legal Aid

Mr. Ronald King Murray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an early statement on legal aid in the lower courts following publication of the recent White Paper on the JP courts in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Legal aid will be extended to criminal proceedings in all courts of summary jurisdiction, as financial resources permit.

Mr. Murray: I hope that there will be an early opportunity to debate this important White Paper, but in the meantime will the Under-Secretary bear in mind the urgency of the matter? The need for legal aid in these courts has been put many times by hon. Members on both sides and there is little point in reorganising these essentially local courts unless we can ensure that justice is available to all regardless of means.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I have indicated, we accept in principle the introduction of this but there is another factor as well as the one of financial resources limitations. We are about to embark on reorganisation of lay summary justice in Scotland following local government reorganisation and that will obviously be the occasion on which to consider these wider matters. We shall consult the Law Society and others involved in the subject.

Mr. Gourlay: If the policies of the White Paper are put into effect, there will be no requirement for the clerks of the new JP courts to have any legal qualifications, thus depriving the lay magistrates of necessary legal advice in court. Will the Under-Secretary seek to alter

this unsatisfactory arrangement before the Bill is brought before the House?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: All we have produced so far is the White Paper, and I promise to make sure that the point mentioned by the hon. Member is taken into account.

Mr. Ross: When will we be discussing the White Paper? Such a discussion is desirable before the subject of a Bill is even approached.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. If he wishes, there can be an opportunity later this summer for a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Atlantic Community

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will be taking in response to the proposals from the United States of America for an Atlantic Community.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I know of no new proposal in precisely these terms but we have welcomed the recognition by the United States of the need for continued trust and co-operation between Europe and the United States. We are discussing with our Community partners how to organise the constructive dialogue between the United States and Europe on which the summit agreed.

Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals put forward in Dr. Kissinger's recent speech represent an historic opportunity to strengthen transatlantic links and particularly to acquire nil tariffs on industrial trade? Will he take steps to correct the unfortunate impression, which has been strengthened by reports of the Paris meeting of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the British Government are lukewarm about these American proposals?

Mr. Royle: I shall be delighted to do so. I welcome the recent confirmation of United States support for the European Community and its further growth, and I


welcome too the confirmation that the United States Government will maintain their security commitments to the allies.

Mr. Lipton: In this kind of sensitive negotiation the reputation of the British Government as a reliable ally is not improved when one of our Service Ministers finds himself in personal difficulties which have all kinds of unfortunate repercussions.

Mr. Biffen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the object of Her Majesty's Government's policy to work for the liberalisation of both the common external industrial tariff and the common agricultural policy in the context of the forthcoming GATT negotiations?

Mr. Royle: That is, of course, one more important aspect of the arrangements which were indicated by the United States of America. It is a mistake to ascribe too much uniformity to the problems set out in that statement or to hope to solve them in a single negotiation. Established institutions are already working on most of the issues but the time scales of those institutions all differ. The IMF and GATT work on different time scales.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Housing (Sunderland)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he has refused to allow the public works department of the Sunderland Corporation to build more houses for sale; and, insofar as this may result in an increase in the prices of the new houses, if he will reconsider his decision.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): My hon. Friend does not consider building for sale to be an appropriate task for a direct labour organisation whose purpose in the housing field is to assist the local authority where appropriate in the discharge of its basic function of providing, maintaining and improving dwellings to rent.

Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that the decision appears particularly stupid to us in Sunderland? The public works department has been building houses very successfully and very cheaply

for private sale, and to stop it from doing so will mean delay in the provision of houses because this building work is unattractive to private enterprise. It will mean also that my constituents will have to pay several thousand pounds more for a new house.

Mr. Eyre: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a scheme at Washington Street, Sunderland, was approved last year. That preceded our decision to encourage local authorities to build for sale in appropriate circumstances. Local authorities have a great deal to do in providing, maintaining and improving dwellings to rent.

Mr. Freeson: Is it not a fact that the Government have been under pressure from the building industry and that is the reason for the instruction which has been issued to local authorities, which will mean that the Government will not allow the local authorities to build for sale with their own direct labour force? Does not this follow strong representations from the private enterprise element in the industry? Are not the Government giving way to narrow ideological pressures?

Mr. Eyre: The Labour Party should remember that it was the previous Labour administration which restricted building for sale by local authorities. By contrast we are actively encouraging local authorities to build for sale to meet local needs for lower-priced housing which are not being met by private developers and to make use of the permitted discounts. The permitted discounts are helpful to low-income purchasers and they represent a reduction in the unrestricted market value.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the Minister accept that the main problem is the provision of houses for people who can afford to buy them at the right price? If the public authorities, through their direct building departments, can produce these houses at prices people can afford, it is intolerable that the Government should refuse them the privilege of doing so.

Mr. Eyre: The direct labour organisations are subject to considerable demands to carry out their basic functions of providing, maintaining and improving dwellings to rent. A considerable proportion of all houses built for sale by local authorities should be built to


NHBRC standards, in respect of which private builders are highly experienced.

Mr. Crosland: Surely the Minister agrees that the housing situation, to put it mildly, needs critical study. Does he not welcome any additional possible source of house building facility that is on offer—and this one is on offer in certain parts of the country? In any case, do not the Government believe in any sort of competition?

Mr. Eyre: There can be considerable competition for the contracts for direct sale. I submit that our new policy should be applauded by anyone who has the interests of prospective house purchasers like young married couples and low-income groups at heart.

Mr. Wiley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter as soon as possible on the Adjournment.

Smokeless Zones

Mr. Kelley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities had to suspend the introduction of smokeless zone orders during the years 1971 and 1972 because of a national shortage of solid smokeless fuel.

Mr. Eyre: The information is not available, since local authorities are empowered to defer the coming into operation of confirmed smoke control orders for up to 12 months without reference to my right hon. and learned Friend. However, the shortage of solid smokeless fuel inherited from the previous Government was ended during the summer of 1971. Since then all authorities have been urged to press forward with smoke

SMOKE CONTROL ORDERS


(a) Submitted


Year


Number
Acres
Premises


1971
…
National
…
237
89,487
374,304




North Region
…
24
7,353
23,395


1972
…
National
…
360
147,521
492,299




North Region
…
56
19,126
57,344


1973 to end April
…
National
…
132
73,479
207,419




North Region
…
25
3,745
15,121


(b) Confirmed


Year


Number
Acres
Premises


1971
…
National
…
203
76,491
321,225




North Region
…
22
7,218
26,801


1972
…
National
…
314
130,632
456,821




North Region
…
33
6,396
32,371


1973 to end April
…
National
…
183
67,022
258,260




North Region
…
39
7,586
32,745

control. I am glad to say that in the first four months of this year considerable progress has been made.

I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Kelley: Is the Minister aware that there is considered to be surplus capacity for producing solid smokeless fuel and that serious consideration is being given by the National Coal Board and others to closing down about £10 million of public investment in this business? Does not the Minister think that it is now the duty of his Department to give instructions to local authorities, or at least to advise them, to press ahead with the declaration of smokeless zones wherever possible? Does he not think that at this moment it would be a retrograde step to cut back stocks of this fuel when there is such a grave need to improve the quality of the air we breathe?

Mr. Eyre: At present, stockpiles of solid smokeless fuels are adequate for foreseeable needs. There is, therefore, no need for anxiety in that respect. But I stress that the Government regard the policy of extending smokeless zones as of great importance and are doing everything possible to encourage local authorities to adopt such schemes.

Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it would greatly help the extension of smokeless zones if the Department and the NCB were to look at the standard and quality of the smokeless fuel being provided?

Mr. Eyre: I will certainly note that point.

Following is the information

SLATER WALKER-HILL SAMUEL(PROPOSED MERGER)

Mr. Clinton Davis (by Private Notice): Mr. Clinton Davis (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his decision, announced on the
22nd May, that the proposed merger between Slater Walker and Hill Samuel should not be referred to the Monopolies Commission.

The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): After full consideration, I reached the view that the proposed merger did not raise issues which required investigation and report by the Monopolies Commission. While the merger satisfies the size-of-assets test, since the assets taken over exceed £5 million, it does not satisfy the market-share test. The proposed new company will not account for a third of the market either in merchant banking or in any of its other activities, such as investment management, unit trust management insurance broking, insurance, leasing and credit finance, and property. In most of these sectors there are a number of larger companies involved and the situation in all of them will remain fully competitive.

Mr. Davis: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would have been preferable if a statement had been made to this House before the decision was revealed, somewhat furtively, to the Press yesterday? Where is the Secretary of State himself, bearing in mind the magnitude of this matter and his former involvement with Slater Walker?
What are the private assurances which have been reported in the Press and which are alleged to have been given by Mr. Slater to the Secretary of State, and why have they not been made public? Should not matters of this kind be considered by an independent body, in the open and not behind closed doors, so that the public can understand what is happening and what are its ramifications?
Finally, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a strong case, particularly following the revelation of events during the last week, for a full-scale public inquiry into our financial institutions?

Sir G. Howe: The hon. Gentleman has a capacity for drawing and linking innuendos none of which is justified. I will deal with each of them specifically. He used the rather remarkable phrase that the decision had been disclosed "somewhat furtively". It was announced, as soon as it was arrived at, publicly to the Press yesterday for everyone to know, including hon. Members.

Mr. Loughlin: Peter Walker is involved.

Sir G. Howe: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) echoes the second false point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), who asked why my right hon. Friend was not here at this time to deal with the matter. I will give the House the precise reason.
As the House well knows, my right hon. Friend was, until he became a member of the Government, associated with one of the companies involved in this bid. In these circumstances, it was entirely right and proper that he should, on becoming a Minister, first of all, have given instructions that all his financial interests in Slater Walker should be sold and, secondly, have made it clear that, in connection with a matter of this kind, he should play no part whatever in its consideration. It is perfectly plain, and I wish to make it plain, that this matter has been under my consideration and not under that of my right hon. Friend. That is his position.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the private assurances which have been given. In almost every case of this kind, discussions take place between my Department and the companies involved in merger bids. Various inquiries are undertaken, various answers are given and various assurances are given. These companies have confirmed to me that their policy in regard to any substantial shareholding in an industrial company will be directed to the long-term interests of the company and its employees. They have made plain their intention to hold prior consultations with my Department about share purchases, direct or indirect, which in certain circumstances might lead to the control of industrial companies, and to divulge more information in regard to company holdings than is required under


the Companies Acts. The precise terms will be made clear in the terms of the offer bid, which is shortly to be made public.

Mr. Benn: The House will accept without question that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has behaved perfectly honourably throughout this matter. I want to devote myself to a quite seperate question.
The proposed merger has been described by The Times as unique for British financial institutions. It will have gross assets of £1,500 million. First, therefore, why should the House of Commons be denied precise knowledge about the assurances sought by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and given to him before he decided not to refer the bid to the Monopolies Commission?
Secondly, did the Governor of the Bank of England consult Ministers before he indicated his support for the merger, and what assurances did the Governor seek and obtain before coming to his view?
Thirdly, why should the public and the employees, and, for that matter, the City and the shareholders, not know the guidelines or criteria, which could be brought out only by a Monopolies Commission inquiry? Would it not be prudent to refer this matter to the Commission, since both Sir Kenneth Keith and Mr. Clark hold major Government appointments and, of course, Hill Samuel and Slater Walker have both contributed very substantial sums to the Conservative Party in the past?
For all these reasons, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not now reconsider his decision and allow the Monopolies Commission to do the independent scrutiny which I believe is right in this case?

Sir G. Howe: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I am glad to have it unquestioningly underlined.
It was because I anticipated that questions as wide ranging as those which the right hon. Gentleman has put might well be raised on this matter—for example, involving contributions to party funds and so on—and because of the importance

of a merger of this kind and of this size that I gave the matter the closest possible consideration. It does not necessarily follow that such consideration should lead to the reference of a merger to the Monopolies Commission.
The combined assets will be less than the right hon. Gentleman suggested. They will total about £1,300 million. The Governor of the Bank of England made it clear that his conclusion was subject to any conclusion I might reach.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I might not have concluded that it was prudent to refer the matter to the Commission. Of course, because of the public interest involved, I gave that point particularly close consideration. But equally it would be right to bear in mind, when one is concerned with the creation of institutions of this kind, capable of winning great advantage in terms of international banking activities, that while it would be right to refer something if it were concluded that it was necessary so it would be wrong to refer if no case were made out. On these considerations, I reached my conclusion.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he can ignore the typical political dirt thrown by the right hon. Member for Bristol. South-East (Mr. Benn)?
Looking at this matter in the overall context, my right hon. and learned Friend will remember that I had certain views on the advisability of signing the Treaty of Rome, but now that that is an accomplished fact, will he keep in mind that it is vital that we should have big financial institutions which are capable of standing up to their competitors within the Common Market, and that it is essential that we should join the giants' team if we are to preserve our share of financial leadership in Europe?

Sir G. Howe: I am particularly grateful to have my hon. Friend's support on that point. That argument, like every other argument in this sort of case, cannot be allowed to be decisive on every question, but it is important to bear in mind that, in the expanding international economic environment, strong overseas representation capable of discharging a wide range of functions is desirable to


meet competition from American and European institutions which, in many cases, are larger and perform a wider range of functions than comparable organisations in this country. That was one of the factors I bore in mind in my consideration.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State's personal involvement in this matter is of no consequence in our view? Is he also aware that this is the second time within the past 10 days that the Government have made curious and odd decisions about the effect of monopolies legislation on companies which have donated large sums to the Conservative Party? Further, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is an issue of major importance and that the time has come not merely for an investigation by the Monopolies Commission into the affairs of Slater Walker but for a full inquiry into the whole aspect of corporate donations to political parties?

Sir G. Howe: The question raised by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) does not arise out of this matter. It was the subject of legislation by the last Government. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, so far as these matters are concerned, that it is a matter of total indifference to me in my discharge of my statutory responsibilities under this legislation whether a company subscribes to the Conservative Party, to the Labour Party or even conceivably to the Liberal Party.

Mr. Biffen: Did I hear my right hon. and learned Friend aright when he said that certain undertakings had been given to him by the proposed merged company as to how it would conduct itself commercially and industrially in future? If those undertakings were given to him, under what statutory authority could they be exacted? That raises an issue of a more profound character than the exhibitions of envy which have so far marked many of these exchanges. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take an early opportunity of expressing to the House exactly what philosophy lies behind the requirements of these professions of future commercial and industrial behaviour?

Sir G. Howe: The position is that, in deciding whether to subject any particular

change in industrial organisation to examination by the Monopolies Commission, plainly one needs to satisfy oneself about a number of existing facts and possible future developments in relation to the merged organisation. In doing that one acquires inevitably, and rightly, the House will think, indications and assurances as to the way in which the proposed organisation is likely to see its immediate future. Those assurances are useful indications in reaching a decision about the instant matter. They are also part of the background which can be taken into account if any future question arises as to the consequences of any further decisions which are taken. It would plainly be foolish to disregard an opportunity of getting some indication of the future probable development of a merged organisation of this kind.

Mr. Dell: Is it the position, precisely for the reason that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gives—that the merger does not meet the market share criterion —that once the merger has taken place the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be able to make any future reference of it to the Monopolies Commission, whether or not the assurances are fulfilled?

Sir G. Howe: If it were to turn out that the monopoly share of the market test were fulfilled—and I have seen no evidence to suggest that—that would be a matter for further consideration. It is obviously possible for me to consider further evidence of that kind.

Mr. Dixon: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider that where a merger was proposed between two trade unions the mere fact that conceivably one of those trade unions had contributed to the political funds of the Labour Party would of itself give him grounds for referring the matter to the Monopolies Commission?

Sir G. Howe: Many interesting questions could arise when we begin to look at the other side of the fence.

Mr. Benn: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise, without prejudice to whether he is right or wrong in his judgment, that the question to which we are addressing ourselves is whether he is the right person to reach that view and whether it is right that


that view should be reached in secret so that, if the assurances are not fulfilled, the House and the country will not be able to judge whether the assurances have been met?
I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when Ford acquired the equity of the Ford Motor Company of Britain his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, published the assurances which he had sought from the Ford Motor Company. Thus, we were able to judge the extent to which those assurances had been fulfilled. Surely the public is entitled to judge the criteria. The criteria and the guidelines are in a sense even more important than this issue. In the light of what I have said, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not now reconsider his decision and ensure that the matter is considered independently so that everyone will know by which criteria matters of this kind are judged?

Sir G. Howe: The right hon. Gentleman persists in saying that this is the wrong way in which to judge matters of this kind. The fact is that successive Governments, when considering the pattern, shape and administration of monopolies legislation, have recognised that it is sensible to operate in two stages, with a decision to be arrived at by the Secretary of State, or another Minister on his behalf, as to whether a reference should be made, and a decision to be arrived at by the Monopolies Commission after a reference has been made. No Minister taking a decision of that kind can do so lightly. It is a substantial responsibility to discharge. It would be easier, as a matter of political convenience, to say, "Let it be referred". In that way the responsibility would be lifted from my shoulders.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and his right hon. Friends reached decisions in favour of substantial mergers in the motor industry, the electrical industry and the banking industry without referring those matters to the Monopolies Commission. They were right to accept that responsibility and to stand up to questioning and criticism, as I do now. It is upon that basis that we recognise that good sense of the two-tier pattern.
As to the underlying facts, I have already stated to the House the nature of the answers given to certain questions raised in relation to the merger. The undertakings will be published in the offer documents. It is upon that discharge of these responsibilities that I think that I am entitled to take my stand and to face questions.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (SECURITY)

Mr. Wellbeloved: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The security arrangements at the Ministry of Defence.
I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for the late notice which I gave you about this matter. It has only just reached my ears that the Prime Minister, as head of security, did not intend to make a statement to the House today. I submit that this is a matter of definite importance as there are allegations circulating both in the national and international Press about matters which have occurred twice in a decade as far as this nation is concerned.
Further, it is a matter of importance because any delay in the Prime Minister making a statement to the House will invite speculation and will arouse in untutored minds perhaps unfounded fears that the delay has a sinister motive in allowing a cover-up to be prepared.
Unless a debate takes place tomorrow under Standing Order No. 9 there will not be adequate opportunity for this important matter of national importance to be debated by the House. Even if a statement were made tomorrow by the Prime Minister, there would not be adequate time for the House to debate any terms of reference for any judicial inquiry which seemed to many people to be imperative. Many people consider that it is imperative that such an inquiry should be set up.
I again apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for the lateness of the notice which I gave you, but the matter is of grave national importance. I urge that the House be given time to debate it before the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I should explain to the House the reason why I have taken this application now. I have had cast upon me the burden of presiding at the Conference on Electoral Law. That has slightly altered the time for which I can be in the Chair, because it is a fairly onerous task, and it involves my leaving the Chair rather earlier on a Wednesday. But I thought it right that I should deal with this application myself.
Under the Standing Order, notice must be given by 12 noon. Notice was not given by then, but was given just before the hon. Gentleman raised the matter. The only other information I have about the matter is that the Prime Minister intends to make a statement tomorrow. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in making my decision. I will not grant the application.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Further to that point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was not a point of order."] In that case, on a fresh point of order. I should like to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expects to make a statement tomorrow afternoon on matters arising from recent reports in the Press.

EEC (MINISTERIAL MEETINGS)

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement about the matters discussed in the Council of the European Communities within the past 10 days. [interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris): Order. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber as quietly as possible? We have a great deal of business before us, and we must get on.

Mr. Davies: The Council has met in four capacities during that period, involving Ministers concerned with foreign affairs, agriculture, social affairs and energy matters.
The principal matters dealt with were general policy papers produced by the Commission in response to decisions reached at the summit meeting last October.
These concerned first, the next stage towards economic and monetary union where there was a brief reference to the joint float, on which the Government's position is unchanged; secondly, regional policy and the creation of a regional development fund; thirdly, the Community's position in the multilateral negotiations under the GATT to be started later this year for the further liberalisation of world trade; fourthly, the negotiations due to start around 1st August for new agreements with the countries now associated with the Community under the Yaoundé and Arusha Conventions as well as those with which association is envisaged under Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession; fifthly, the development of general guidelines in the field of social affairs; and, sixthly, the development of a concerted policy on energy matters.
In each case the Council has commented upon the broad approach outlined by the papers, copies of which have been made available in the Library of the House.
This now allows the Commission to proceed to a more precise definition of the aims of the Community in these fields and for the next phase of the work to go forward.
In addition, approval was given to an agreement between the Community and Norway to provide for a free trade area between the two and to bring Norway into line with the remaining EFTA countries which did not seek membership.
Further consideration was given to the development of a basis for negotiation with the countries bordering on the Mediterranean.
Progress was made towards reaching a formula as a basis for support for the production of coking coal for the steel industry.
The purpose is to subsidise the production of coal of this sort by any member country for use in another.
As the United Kingdom is to all intents and purposes self-sufficient in this product the arrangement affects us very little, though it is likely to procure some small net advantage.
Discussion also took place concerning the early convening of a conference with representatives of employers and unions


to consider the proposals for a Community policy on social affairs.
I should make clear that the Council's discussion of future regional policy did not cover the quite separate question of determining under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession those areas of the United Kingdom which are to be regarded as peripheral for the purposes of existing Community rules on the application of competition policy to regional aids.
This has been the subject of a number of separate discussions, including talks which took place yesterday in London between my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development and other of my right hon. Friends and M. Borschette, the Commissioner responsible.
It was made clear to him that Her Majesty's Government are only prepared to contemplate a determination which does not involve cutting back on the present levels and coverage of assistance available under the Industry Act.
The House will be kept informed of developments.

Mr. Shore: I first give an unqualified welcome to the agreement between the Communities and Norway, which I am sure will be greeted with satisfaction, not only because of our long and traditional friendship with Norway but because the nature of the agreement reached with Norway is one that many of us believe to be very satisfactory in principle, one which could well have far better served the interests of this country.
On the other matters which the right hon. Gentleman has brought before us, he will, I am sure, understand if I concentrate my questions on only three points, because the field is so wide.
First, I put it to him that the whole question of the second stage of the economic and monetary union which was discussed on a paper from the Commission at the recent Council of Ministers is, in the view of many of us, entirely premature, and not only premature but dangerous in so far as it involves the premature fixing of the pound and the end of its present floating. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there has been no change at all in the position outlined by his right hon. Friend the Prime Mini-

ster—that there would be no fixing of the pound without the total commitment of reserves by all the other member countries? Even that, if it were accepted, is something which we should want to examine very carefully.
Secondly, on regional policy, while we note that the report has nothing to say about the common regional policy which is still being much discussed in Europe, the statement has a great deal to say about the effects of Community discipline on our own regional policy operated in in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman obviously sought to be reassuring in what he said, but when he says that the Government would not contemplate a determination by the Commission that involved any cutting back of the level of support under the Industry Act, will he take it from me that that is only a very partial safeguard for both the development areas and the intermediate areas? The level of support in those areas is not crucially determined by the Act. It is determined very much also by the regional employment premium, about which we have heard nothing, and by the whole range of incentives to industry—investment incentives, free depreciation and the like—which, unless we assert ourselves very strongly, I understand could be ruled out by decisions of the Commission, on the ground that they infringe the principles that the Commission agreed even before we became a member.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession it does not lie in the Government's power, because they have already accepted the Commission's authority under the Treaty, to say that they would not be prepared to contemplate a Commission determination? I understand that that is something that the Commission itself has the power to decide, not only under the Treaty of Accession but, emphatically, under the Treaty of Rome.
Lastly, I should like to refer to the most important talks that are to take place with the United States, the multilateral trade talks later this year. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he and his right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have pressed and made sure that agricultural


trade matters, including the common agricultural policy, will be subject to serious multilateral negotiations when the trade talks begin, and that we have rejected the French effort to exclude any serious debate on agricultural policy, which the French made in the Council of Ministers. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that when such important matters of this kind are raised affecting our future trade and monetary position, the future of the Yaoundé and association agreements, it is incumbent upon him to press his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for adequate time to debate these matters before any Community determinations are reached in June or July.

Mr. Davies: It is neither implied nor implicit that the studies made for the attainment of the second phase of economic and monetary union involve an obligatory return to the Community float. I make it clear that the situation has in no way changed since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the position abundantly clear to the House in March. In so far as the right hon. Gentleman seeks a reassurance on that, he has it.
In dealing with Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession and its effect upon the existing assisted areas in this country the right hon. Gentleman made use of the expression "Community discipline." I should bring to his mind the thought that Community discipline is not a matter of damage to us—quite the contrary. It is true that the Community discipline to which he refers prevents the concentration of investments which are mobile by unfair bidding-up between member countries for those investment operations. To this degree it represents a discipline which I am bound to say I welcome and which I believe is to our advantage.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the recent outcome of the discussions by the Commission would penalise the full arrangements we have for helping our assisted areas. I can reassure him. It seems exceedingly unlikely. As I have said in the statement, it is our determined intention to see that we are not put in a position when we are obliged to reduce the incentives we currently make available for the regions.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about our attitude towards a substantial agricultural element in the multilateral trade negotiations. I can again confirm that we have consistently pressed for there to be a substantial agricultural element. I should add that it has not been the Government's intention, and it will not be this Government's intention, to seek to break up the common agricultural policy, which we accepted—as our predecessors accepted it, when they approached this problem—as a factor of life in the Community. That does not mean that there are no agricultural matters, outside the existence of the basic requirements of the common agricultural policy, which are open for consideration in the multilateral talks. It is certainly the Government's intention to make sure that such elements are brought into the discussion at the appropriate time. I will bring the comments of the right hon. Gentleman about the need for additional time to debate these matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jay: If Norway has obtained the advantages of a free trade area outside the EEC, what additional advantages did we gain by joining?

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman knows that this is a matter which has been lengthily debated in the House. The Government firmly believe that the advantages we obtained by joining are many and extensive and go much further than those of the free trade area provided for Norway. We believe that there are real advantages, in terms of the extension of our industrial position in Europe, which are not available to the Norwegians. We believe that the development of a number of policies which are currently in the course of elaboration in the Community will be of immense advantage to this country. The right hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris): Order. If all hon. Members who wish to ask questions—and there is a large number of them—could take a leaf from the book of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) they might all be called.

Sir Robin Turton: Among all the subjects mentioned by my right hon. Friend


I did not hear any talk of the International Sugar Agreement, which poses an urgent problem. Can he confirm that the Council of Ministers discussed this matter and came to an agreement that the Community should join the International Sugar Agreement before the forthcoming conference?

Mr. Davies: No, Sir. The International Sugar Agreement has not been under discussion during the meetings of the Council. I should remind my right hon. Friend that some time ago the Community stated its intention favourably to consider membership of the International Sugar Agreement. The Government will be pressing their partners to that end in the course of any discussions that take place.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the central weakness of the Green Paper on regional policy published by the EEC a fortnight ago was that it was subject to Articles 92 and 94, which are the restrictive provisions of the treaty and which can stultify the freedom of State Governments to carry out regional policies? Is he prepared to ask for a relaxation of these impediments upon our system?

Mr. Davies: There is no doubt that it is not in my mind nor in the mind of the Commission that the provisions of Articles 92 and 94 would seriously limit the application of the policies proposed by Mr. George Thomson in the paper which he circulated to the Council. In preparing the paper the Commissioners had very careful regard to the provisions of the treaty so that it is unlikely that they would produce proposals which ran athwart the treaty. On the contrary, it is right to say that this paper, which embodies many of the ideas and thoughts which have been generated in the House and the country, offers a real opportunity for us to attain through the Community substantial help for some of the regions which need assistance.

Mr. David Steel: May I return to this question of regional policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that labour subsidies in the development areas are at present within the rules of the Community and that there is no intention to change this? Will he therefore say

whether the Government intend to wait until after the matters in the Green Paper have been resolved before deciding on the future of the regional employment premium?

Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made the Government's view on the regional employment premium abundantly clear. I will not seek to elaborate it. It is right to say that the existence of a labour subsidy is not against the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, which has no provisions automatically debarring such a scheme. In fairness to the House, it is true to say that there has been a pre-judgment against this kind of support. It is not something which is embodied in treaty terms.

Mr. Powell: At what stage and in what form will the Government take the view of this House upon the Community's negotiating position in the GATT negotiations?

Mr. Davies: Through the papers which have been made available to this House, hon. Members have the existing recommendations and proposals which have been put before the Council. These have to be refined, in the next phase and put into a more precise state. I fully expect that elaborated papers will be in the hands of hon. Members in the same way. Members of this House have the widest capacity for ensuring that matters which they consider important are fully debated.

Mr. Powell: How? By Standing Order No. 9?

Mr. Davies: No. There are many other methods. I am bound to say that I am surprised at the relatively few questions I am asked on matters of this kind during Question Time. I would be prepared and happy to answer them. There are many ways which are not at this moment fully exploited.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the Minister explain, if REP is not to go forward, what the Government position is on alternative proposals which have been put up, including congestion tax and other suggestions of great importance to our areas?

Mr. Davies: I certainly did not say that REP is not to go forward. I said that REP is subject to the provisions


which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined during the course of a statement which he made on the subject last year, and that involved the progressive running down of REP at a cadence to be decided in due course.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that when it comes to discussing the question of worker participation throughout the European Economic Community, this Government will support that strongly?
Secondly, would my right hon. Friend assure the House that the real difference between the agreement between Norway and the EEC and this country and the EEC is that whereas this country has a full part to play in what the EEC does, Norway can play no part but must stand idly by while she is affected by the EEC?

Mr. Davies: On the first question, it is correct that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, during the course of the recent Council meeting of the Ministers concerned with social affairs, referred to worker participation, and made a positive statement on this Government's interest in this matter and determination to press forward with it. That will be the pattern of discussion we shall pursue.
As far as Norway is concerned, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I should point to the five papers which have now been made available in the Library, and ask Members whether objectively they cannot see within them the wide field of representation and points which have come from here. That in itself is a proof of what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The right hon. Gentleman reported on the efforts to get a co-ordinated energy policy. Is he aware that up to now this House has heard nothing of the Government's thinking on this vital issue? How can it be that the Government can put a point of view on the Continent to which we are not party?

Mr. Davies: Here again the Commission paper on the subject is before the House. It would be fully open to Members to raise these matters, and they would certainly be replied to.
I should equally point out that the question of energy policy is inevitably at

an early stage of discussion in the Community, bearing in mind that there has been little discussion in this field of policy for some considerable time. Therefore, the meeting which took place on this subject yesterday was the first meeting for three years or so, and inevitably found itself faced with a wide range of discussion. It will take some time.

Mr. Edward Taylor: My right hon. Friend indicated that he is hopeful that it will be possible to get agreement on the designation of peripheral areas between the EEC and Britain. Could he tell me what happens if we do not agree? Whose view prevails?

Mr. Davies: I am rather disinclined to contemplate hypothetical disasters. I should say to my hon. Friend that I intend strongly to pursue the purposes which I have outlined, and at this stage I do not contemplate having to deal with what would be a defeat of that proposition.

Mr. Baxter: I understand that the Minister has had some discussions with regard to the exploitation of coking coal. Is he aware of the fact that very valuable seams of coking coal are under the Forth area of Stirlingshire? Roughly 20 years ago the Coal Board spent almost £1 million on sinking a mine to go down to that coal, but disbanded it because of lack of demand for coking coal at that time. I hope that he will bear that factor in mind when he is having further discussions on the subject.

Mr. Davies: Yes, indeed I will. I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman says. I must point out that the cost of coking coal in this country, as in other Community countries, is pretty high in relation to imported supplies. It is difficult to maintain the efficient fuelling of the steel industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has now been found necessary to have recourse to a subsidy in that field, although this subsidy little affects us.

Mr. Laurance Reed: The energy crisis makes the energy problem all the more urgent. Does my right hon. Friend have the impression that other members within the Common Market, especially the French, understand that this problem can be solved only by transatlantic co-operation?

Mr. Davies: This was one of the matters which was discussed at the Council meeting yesterday. It is right to say that with differing degrees of insistence or emphasis, all member States are concerned about the future of the energy policy. I recognise—and there is no dissentiment on this—that it is necessary to have a concerted position in Europe in relation to energy policy.
Equally, I believe that the problems of the mounting demand, both in the United States and elsewhere, is a worldwide problem which will need some form of worldwide solution.
What I have said about the problem of starting these discussions after a long intermission precludes one from going further than that in response to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Molloy: May I put to the right hon. Gentleman the last point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore)? Does he in his heart believe that what we have been going through for the last quarter of an hour is the right way to discuss matters of which he has informed the House this afternoon? Does he believe that it is quite right for a British Member of Parliament to be told that all these important papers are there to be read in the Library, with not much chance of doing anything about it?
Would he not, finally, agree that what we have had demonstrated this afternoon confirms the grave apprehension of many of us that this European Economic Community will undermine the great traditions of British democracy, and that it is about time we stood up and said this loudly and clearly?

Mr. Davies: I would simply recall to the hon. Gentleman that what I am doing this afternoon is responding to the requests made by the ad hoc Select Committee, on which his party was represented, as indeed was my own.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that my constituency is closely associated with Norway, could I convey my congratulations to my right hon. Friend for the new arrangements? I am going to Norway on Friday.
In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend made a comment about the

regional employment premium, and in view of what the Chancellor has said, would my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that I do not agree with the Chancellor on the regional employment premium? Therefore, when this matter comes up for discussion, would he please look at both sides of the question because it is a good thing to have criticisms as well as support?

Mr. Davies: I will certainly bring my right hon. Friend's attention to what my hon. Friend has said. I know from experience that he will be far indeed from disregarding her advice.

Mr. McBride: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what are the indications of future investment policies rising out of the EEC fund for peripheral nations such as Wales? Does he not think that the regional fund is insufficient for requirements and that, with the free flow of capital from this country, future investment in the Community will be centred in one area, such as Paris, as the centre of the radius taking in London, to the detriment of small nations such as Wales? Will he please tell the truth?

Mr. Davies: The first truth to tell is that no figure whatever has yet been stated in respect of the regional development fund of the Community. The matter is still open for discussion and will no doubt be freely and intensely discussed in the course of the next weeks and months.
On the second point, it is indeed precisely the point on which I was responding to his right hon. Friend, that the provisions of Article 154 are a support for our own prospects of investment in this country.

Mr. Body: Has the House power to express an opinion about the GATT negotiations before they take place and, if so, will the House be allowed to express that opinion?

Mr. Davies: Before these negotiations start in September in Tokyo, I am convinced that the House will have every opportunity to express its views as the papers which are at the base of the Community's thinking on how it should handle its part in these negotiations become available to the House. Furthermore, it seems perfectly evident that the length of these negotiations will be considerable. The House will be continually


informed of the progress and will no doubt have an equal opportunity to comment as the negotiations go forward.

Mr. English: Has the Council of Ministers eyed discussed the fraudulent and corrupt use of Community funds and has anybody been prosecuted in relation to that?

Mr. Davies: Since we have been a member of the Community, to the best of my belief there has not been discussion in the Council of the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As he knows, in the European Parliament there has been considerable discussion on the subject, as there has been within the European working parties and committees. This matter as yet has not come before the Council of Ministers, but I have no doubt that it will.

Mr. Farr: I am surprised and disturbed by what my right hon. Friend said about CAP. If I may remind him, he said that there might be peripheral changes which might come up for discussion. That is in direct contradiction to the assurance which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to the House three weeks ago after the European Price Review. Is the undertaking which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture secured at that time—namely, that there would be a fundamental reappraisal of the CAP—superseded by what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said today?

Mr. Davies: No. The word "peripheral" is my hon. Friend's, not mine. On the contrary, I said that it was not the purpose of the Government to undermine the basic principles of the CAP. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture certainly did not in any way give the impression that that was the purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] What he said was that the Commission had undertaken to make a deep-seated study of the CAP in today's circumstances with a view to seeing whether modifications and improvements should be made. This is a matter which will go forward and one to which, obviously, the Government attach great importance.

Mr. Eadie: In the discussions on energy, was the question of North Sea

oil raised in the context that it is Common Market oil, as has been claimed within Europe? Were there any discussions on the coal mining industry? Common Market countries have slaughtered their coal mining industry and have begun to regret it. Were there any discussions on new coal pit sinks and where they are likely to be?

Mr. Davies: No mention was made of North Sea oil during the Council meeting on energy yesterday. On the subject of coal mining, there was extensive discussion on the importance of this source of fuel to the Community from many points of view. There was no specific discussion on the subject of the sinking of individual pits, but Ministers concerned with energy policies expect to undertake further examination of the importance of coal in the future to the Community.

Mr. Deakins: Did the Council of Ministers disagree in principle with any of the named points put forward in the Commission's paper on the forthcoming GATT negotiations?

Mr. Davies: Ministers certainly had many nuances of difference in their views, but it would not be right to say that there were fundamental disagreements on the Commission paper. Indeed, it should not be so, because the Commission was authorised to proceed with the paper to formulate more precise facts and proposals for elaborating this mandate for discussion. There were many comments, which the Commission will take into account.

Mr. Sutcliffe: My right hon. Friend said that sugar was not discussed. Will he say to what extent the trade interests of Commonwealth countries were discussed?

Mr. Davies: Yes. This was a matter of specific discussion because one of the papers to which we were addressing ourselves dealt with the negotiations to take place later this year to replace the Yaoundé and Arusha Conventions and to provide, I hope, new single-type agreements to embrace all existing associated and associable countries, or as many as possible. Many of these countries are involved in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. As my hon. Friend knows, within the framework of Protocol 22 there


is specific provision with regard to sugar. That specific provision has been firmly emphasised and underlined during the two Lancaster House meetings, the last of which took place earlier this year.

Mr. Milne: Before the Community finalises its regional policy, will the Minister arrange for the Regional Commissioner to visit all development areas in Britain, particularly the North-East, to acquaint himself with the British view-point? On the question of Norway and other EFTA countries which have not joined the Common Market, does the Minister realise that the agreement was beneficial not only to Norway but also to the North-East which was able to share in Norway's oil boom which otherwise might have passed us by?

Mr. Davies: I know that it is Mr. Thomson's personal wish to visit all the main areas throughout the whole Community where material assistance is required, and the North-East will obviously not he missed out. I am glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the effect of the Norway Agreement.

Mr. Moate: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for the House to have an opportunity of discussing the GATT negotiations before the Community reaches a fixed negotiating position? Will not the GATT talks represent a unique opportunity to secure free trade in industrial goods right across the free world? In view of the importance of this, does not my right hon. Friend agree that this question and answer procedure is unsatisfactory? Does not he himself want this matter to be fully debated on the Floor of the House at an early date?

Mr. Davies: I personally welcome as many opportunities as possible to talk about these matters on the Floor of the House, or indeed elsewhere in the House. I should be happy to find opportunities to do so in addition to those that already exist. I say firmly to my hon. Friend that information will be available upon which debates can take place. There is the necessary machinery. An ad hoc Select Committee of the House is considering the means by which these matters may be more effectively ventilated. Surely

these matters are in the hands of the House?

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister reconsider the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) that North Sea oil was not discussed at the meeting of Ministers responsible for energy? I find that extremely difficult to believe in view of the Commission's document and its assessment going back as far as 1968. Will the Minister accept that we in Scotland would find it difficult to accept North Sea oil being used as a bargaining counter in a common energy policy when it should be used as a bargaining counter to get agreement on scarce resources of oil and other energy within the Community, the United States and Japan?

Mr. Davies: I can only strongly reaffirm what I said just now, that North Sea oil was not discussed yesterday during the meeting of energy Ministers. What were discussed, perhaps naturally, were the gross figures of supply and demand. These were not specifically broken down, except in broad terms as between Middle East supplies and supplies from other sources. It is perhaps not altogether surprising that North Sea oil supplies were not identified and separately discussed.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Will the Minister accept that before the regional development fund has any realistic hope of acceptance three conditions must apply? First, there must be no discrimination in the extent of coverage and the amount of assistance under the British national development policy. Secondly, in order to be meaningful the fund must run in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds. And, thirdly, the genuine peripheral areas, such as South-West Wales or North-West Wales, must get extra assistance even above those development areas which are far more advantageously placed.

Mr. Davies: On the first point, I must underline the fact that the question of the definition of assisted areas in this country as peripheral or central is a matter entirely divorced from the development of the regional policy or the setting up of the regional development fund. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another and the basis on which these two activities are


conducted, and indeed the bodies by which they are conducted, are quite different. I must insist on that point.
I take note of the hon. Gentleman's rather bold statement about quantity, which I am interested to hear. I am not sure that I can undertake that specific parts of Wales will be at an advantage as against other parts of the country, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Shore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House is pleased to see him at the Dispatch Box and wishes to see him more often, but also wishes —and this is the point of some questions put by my hon. Friends—to have the opportunity of debating these matters in addition to questioning him on them?
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could clarify two points. Can he make it clear that the forthcoming multilateral trade talks with the United States and other countries will include agricultural products generally and not just those agricultural products which lie outside the CAP? I should like to be very clear on that point.
Secondly, will he make clear whether it is the case that, if there is a disagreement between the British Government and the Commission on what is a peripheral area for regional purposes, the British Government can prevail against the Commission only if it gets the unanimous support of all the other members of the Council of Ministers? Is that so?

Mr. Davies: I have resisted hitherto, and propose to go on resisting, outlining what course of action might be necessary if there were to be the hypothetical dispute to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I can only say that I do not believe that we are without recourse, but beyond that I will not go.
As regards the question of the range of agricultural products which can be introduced into the multilateral negotiations, I did not wish to make the point that no single product that falls within the common agricultural policy could be introduced into the multilateral talks. I do not think that is so. What I said, and now repeat, was that any product which figures prominently within the CAP would not, I believe, be introduced, and we would certainly not press for

it to be introduced if it meant the undermining of the common agricultural policy.

BILL PRESENTED

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Secretary Campbell, supported by Mr. Hector Monro, presented a Bill to make provision with regard to the powers of the Secretary of State under Sections 1(2) and 76(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, and under the said Section 1(2), as re-enacted as Section 2 of the said Act of 1962 by the Education (Scotland) Act 1969, in relation to the employment of teachers, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

ANTI-HARASSMENT BILL

4.35 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law against harassment of occupiers.
No one who reads the property pages of our national newspapers or magazines can have failed to notice the enormous profits which are to be made out of the conversion of old houses in inner London into self-contained units or very expensive furnished flats. Nor can he have failed to notice that vacant possession at least doubles the value of the property prior to conversion. The process of emptying these properties prior to conversion is becoming known as "winkling" and the people who carry out the practice are known as "winklers".
That there is ample incentive for these men to indulge in this business is shown by these typical advertisements. One taken from a recent issue of the Kensington News and Post says:
£500 reward Dead or Alive (i.e. occupied or empty). This reward will be paid for information leading to purchase of a House that is not advertised and is suitable for conversion to flats.
Then it gives the name and address of the agent. Then there is this advertisement taken from the Financial Times:
How to make £100,000. Get into property. You don't need tremendous capital, but you do need the know-how.


I am told that if advice is taken from the experts one buys property fully occupied as cheaply as possible and then begins to winkle out the sitting tenants. If anyone still thinks that Rachman is dead, let him visit my advice service any Friday evening and listen to the heartbreaking stories of what these unscrupulous men are prepared to do, almost always to elderly people, in order to get vacant possession. I could give scores of examples: not the kind of stuff that makes national headlines, but the kind of thing that ought to concern every decent citizen. Let me mention a few cases by way of example.
Take the case of the tenant whose backyard was dug up and a trench about 2 ft. deep made which exposed all the drains leading from her back door to the door of her outside lavatory. This was done under the guise of necessary repairs. A plank was placed from her back door, over the trench, to her lavatory, and it was left like that for weeks. This lady, none too steady on her legs, had literally to walk the plank to get to her loo, or use a bucket in the kitchen.
Then there was the old lady who was the last controlled tenant left alone in a great big house; during the night the winklers would enter it and march about the stairs and landings, making a tremendous din, while the old lady sat in her flat or lay in her bed absolutely petrified until they had gone. When they went they invariably left the front door open.
I will give one more example to show the kind of thing that concerns me. This time it is the story of a woman of 69 years of age who had spent years cultivating a little garden outside her controlled accommodation. The property changed hands, and this is the lady's own story of what happened. She said that:
during the summer of 1971, her landlords had thrown pieces of wood across her plants and placed her clothes line on the lawn; cut down shrubs and trees, and then invited friends in to eat the fruit from the loganberry and blackberry bushes; thrown her stone bird bath into the fishpond; burnt her bird table, a fence, three clothes props, some sticks and poles and a ladder; and placed a wire down the middle of the garden and put up a notice forbidding her to use half of the garden.

There is not a London representative on any local council, in inner London certainly, or in this House who could not add to that long list. If time permitted I could spend a long time reciting stories of dreadful harassment in the inner London area. For instance, I heard just before I entered the Chamber this afternoon of a landlord who has removed the inner staircase from a house which is still occupied. At the other end of the scale, we are all familiar with stories of young couples who are being asked to give an undertaking that the wife will stay on the pill for at least five years before they can qualify for a mortgage. This is amazing harassment. Yet that part of the 1965 Rent Act which deals with protection against harassment is the most difficult to enforce.
When a complaint is received and the local authority considers the complaint to be genuine, the question of evidence to comply with Section 30(2) must be considered. The most difficult problems usually centre around the words in the Act:
does acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort".
This, together with the word "persistently", causes the most difficulties and will be redefined in my Bill.
The Bill will seek to shift some of the burden of proof from the prosecution and thus ease the burden of local authorities, which are trying to deal with this problem. I will seek in this Bill to reduce the difficulties encountered by local authorities in stress areas in protecting tenants from exploitation and harassment, and enable them to carry out some of the recommendations contained in the Francis Committee's Report of 1971.
It is true that the Criminal Justice Act 1972 includes penalties for harassment. But in two recent cases in my borough the learned justices have chosen to impose very low penalties. In one case there was a fine of £10 with £10 costs. In the other case, which was a case of unlawful eviction, the defendant was given a conditional discharge.
In the neighbouring borough of Islington, of nine successful prosecutions, recently brought by the council for harassment or unlawful eviction, one case resulted in an absolute discharge,


four cases in fines of between £2 and £3, two in fines of £20, and two in fines of £40. No costs at all were awarded in two of those cases.
I believe that the time has come to think in terms of minimum penalties, and my Bill will seek to introduce such penalties, including very heavy gaol sentences.
The Bill will not solve the housing problem. But, by strengthening the hands of those local authorities which are trying to deal with this evil practice of winkling, it will help to curb those greedy, ruthless men who are concerned only to make enormous profits out of the misery, unhappiness, hardship and desperation of usually the most vulnerable, the weakest and, in many cases, the oldest of our citizens whose only fault is that their continued presence in their accommodation interferes with the selfish plans of property developers and individual speculators. This is really the most brutal face of capitalism, and I intend to expose it at every available opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. David Weitzman, Mr. Julius Silverman, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. Gavin Strang, Mr. Roland Moyle, Mr. James Wellbeloved, Mr. William Price and Mr. Robert Hughes.

ANTI-HARASSMENT

Bill to amend the law against harassment of occupiers, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 20th July and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
2. Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973.
3. London Cab Act 1973.
4. Overseas Pensions Act 1973.
5. Law Reform (Diligence) (Scotland) Act 1973.
6. Education (Work Experience) Act 1973.
7. Employment of Children Act 1973.
8. Succession (Scotland) Act 1973.
9. Land Compensation Act 1973.
10. Mallaig Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1973.
11. Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1973.
12. Forward Trust Act 1973.
13. Upper Mersey Navigation Act 1973.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION AND AGENCIES

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness): I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'ten' and insert 'thirteen'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris): With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 1, in page 2, line 4, at end insert:
'one of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the retail consortium'.

No. 59, in Clause 2, page 2, line 11, at end insert:
'and
(e) as to three other members who shall be members of Industrial Training Boards, Industrial Training Boards'.

Mr. Booth: It may be appropriate if at the outset I declare an interest in employment and training. I am a sponsored member of the Technical and Supervisory Section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers.
The purpose of this amendment is to create three places on the Manpower Services Commission for members of industrial training boards.
As it is drafted at present, Clause 2 reads:
… it shall be the duty of the Commission to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the purpose of assisting persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities and to obtain suitable employees …".
I submit that members of industrial training boards have experience and knowledge which suits them ideally to assist the commission and to serve on the commission for the purpose of carrying out this duty of the commission.
As it is defined at present, the commission is composed of representatives of

employers, of trade unions and of local authorities. In addition there is one member of an organisation concerned with education. All of those members have a very proper interest in the duty of the commission. However I consider that their interests are no greater and have no higher importance than those of the industrial training boards in that duty of the commission.
While employers may take a pride in good training, they have a primary duty to their shareholders to maintain the profitability of their firms.
The unions, which in many cases have a proper concern for training and do much to develop training schemes, nevertheless have as their first interest on behalf of their members who are trained the promotion of their interests in wages and working conditions.
The local authorities, which are very closely concerned with the effects of industries operating in their areas in order that they may discharge their statutory duties and give proper expression to the views of the communities which they represent, nevertheless are more concerned with the exterior effects of industry and its employment capacity than with the primary duty of the commission.
Members of educational organisations, although concerned about the duty of the commission and about industrial training, are concerned about that only as a minor part of their overall concern for education. It is only right that that should be so. I hope that we shall never regard the rôle of education organisations as being solely a matter of creating labour forces for our factories. I believe that we should see the duty of education organisations as being that of fitting people to lead full lives in our community and not merely seeing that they can earn their bread and butter.
I suggest, therefore, that the commission is not complete as it is defined in the Bill at present. While it contains people who should be on the commission, it omits one other category of people who should be on it, namely, representatives of the industrial training boards.
The industrial training boards take a broader view of industry than any of those already having a direct right to be on the Commission. In the first place


any industrial training board is bound to look at all the firms in the industry with which it is concerned, be they large or small, be they making a wide range of products or dealing with very specialist products. They take a broad view of industry.
An industrial training board has a certain independence in its attitude towards the industry with which it is concerned in that it is not answerable to shareholders nor directly answerable to the trade unions. An industrial training board can take a view about the way in which its industry should develop and the way in which its manpower requirements should be met. That is a broad view and it is often one which is forward looking.
An industrial training board is concerned not only about those currently training or seeking employment in its industry. It is also concerned about the future manpower requirement of the industry and the changes that the development of new techniques in manufacture will have upon those working in the industry in the future. It is concerned therefore with future craftsmen and with those at present at school who will be seeking employment in the industry in the future, as well as with those currently in the industry. Therefore, the view that the industrial training boards take of industry and the contribution that members of such boards could make to the Manpower Services Commission is considerable.
I admit that I was faced, as were my hon. Friends whose names appear on these amendments, with considerable difficulty in determining the number of people to suggest. The amendment proposes there should be three members of industrial training boards to put the representatives of such boards foursquare in numbers with representatives of employers and of unions. The amendment presumes that their contribution is not necessarily any more important than that of employers or unions, but that it is no less important in the total rôle of the commission. I believe that three members from industrial training boards would greatly strengthen the commission and enable it to perform its duty in a more effective and far-seeing way. I therefore commend these amendments to the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I could discuss at length the point made by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), because for 10 years I have been professionally engaged in helping to operate the Industrial Training Act and in dealing with some 12 boards. I have mixed views about the boards. Some are good. Others which are not even capable of managing their own accounts are probably not fitted to give advice to industry on other aspects. However, I shall not develop that point today.
I want to confine myself to the membership of the commission. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give me a satisfactory assurance on the point that I want to make.
I speak as chairman of the all-party retail group in this House. It is a pity that the Bill, as it emerged from the Standing Committee, did not provide that one member of the commission should be appointed after consultation with the Retail Consortium. The Retail Consortium is now a fact with which the Department has to reckon. It comprises, to name only four of its components, the Multiple Shops Federation, the Mail Order Traders Association of Great Britain, the Co-op and the Retail Alliance, which gives it a broad enough cross-section to show that it is representative of the entire retail distribution organisation of this country.
Distribution is a vast industry on its own. I say bluntly to my hon. Friend that I hope he will not listen to some of the views coming out from his officials that the CBI can talk for the retail trade. I say that even though I am a member of the council of the CBI.
It is right, in considering the retail trade, to appoint someone specifically who understands the problems of retail distribution. I repeat, the Retail Consortium, made up of these four major components—the Co-op, the Mail Order Traders Association of Great Britain, the Multiple Shops Federation and the Retail Alliance which in itself is an alliance of a substantial number of specialist organisations—is the body that should speak for the retail trade.
I remind my hon. Friend that when the Government were holding their discussions on phases 1 and 2 they specifically invited the Retail Consortium, led by my


noble Friend Lord Redmayne, to discuss with them ways in which prices in the retail trade might be controlled and examined. If it was good enough for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and subsequently my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss matters specifically with the Retail Consortium, I suggest it is not good enough for the Department of Employment to say that it will not discuss these matters with someone specifically qualified to talk about retail matters.
My hon. Friend knows me well enough to appreciate that I am not a difficult character. I am sure that he will be able to satisfy me on this point. I do not necessarily want an acceptance of my amendment, but acceptance of the idea behind it. This can be achieved equally well, even though my amendment may not be accepted, if, under Clause 1(2)(a), one of those three members is appointed by him after he has consulted the Retail Consortium.
I shall find it difficult to accept the answer that if my hon. Friend has to consult the Retail Consortium other organisations might wish to be consulted. It might be that the Welsh TUC or the Scottish CBI will want separate representation or consultation. If my hon. Friend is to use that argument, I suggest that it just is not on. It is not an acceptable argument which would convince me, and, knowing my hon. Friend, I do not think it would convince him.
The Scottish CBI is an offshoot of the whole CBI, and the Welsh TUC, if it exists, is an offshoot of the whole TUC but talking for a specialist part. However, the CBI is the Confederation of British Industry. It has not spawned as an offshoot the Retail Consortium. Therefore, unless my hon. Friend assures me that he will take this point on board. it means—I suppose it is odd that I should say this—that the voice of the Co-op would not be heard, whereas, if he consults the Retail Consortium, the voice of the Co-op, as one of the members of the Retail Consortium, would be listened to, as would the voices of the Multiple Shops Federation, the Mail Order Traders Association of Great Britain and the other component parts of the Retail Consortium.
That is the brief point that I wish to make to my hon. Friend. I hope he will take it on board. I ask the House to forgive me for not being here if this section of the debate goes past six o'clock, because I have a long-standing engagement elsewhere. I do not wish to be discourteous.

Mr. Robert Taylor: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him which particular industrial training board has been of great benefit to the retail industry, and in what way?

Mr. Finsberg: The Distributive Industry Training Board has not been as bad an organisation as many of its detractors would make out. It has learned from a very shaky start. It had a very shaky start, but under the excellent directorship of my noble Friend Lord Mottistone it learned that if it was to be a constructive body it had to consult its industry. Although the good major retailers managed their own industrial training quite well before the DITB was set up, I do not think anybody could say that it has been too bad.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I cannot resist the temptation to take part in the debate after the reference by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) to the need for the voice of the Co-ops to be heard. I am a Co-op Member, and as such I declare my interest.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I take the view that the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) would meet the case. If an additional three people were appointed, as suggested by my hon. Friend, that would provide the opportunity for one person who represents retail distribution to come from that Industrial Training Board, and the voice of that service could be heard in that way.
In this House and elsewhere from time to time a lot of emphasis is laid on productive industry. People tend to forget that thousands are employed in retail distribution, and it is because of that imbalance of emphasis that the case made by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend deserves the Government's attention.
Efforts that have been made to secure higher standards in industrial production have had their counterpart in retail distribution. Training colleges and courses and other action that has been taken by the training boards for retail distribution have sought to help the economy on the other side of the coin.
It is not enough to produce goods and then leave things to chance. After the goods have been produced they must be distributed, and distribution costs are part of the total economic price which the community has to pay. Therefore, when we are considering the constitution of the commission we must consider not only the production side and representatives of employers and of the TUC, who must inevitably have a large say in these matters, but also the service industries and retail distribution trades.
I, too, am a member of the all-party group chaired by the hon. Member for Hampstead, which has as its secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). The hon. Gentleman has done a service by bringing this matter to the attention of the Government.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): I have listened to several persuasive speeches full of temptations but I have not been persuaded of the need to accept the amendment. We had a full discussion in Committee about the size and constitution of the commission and about the difficulties which would be likely to be posed by a number of organisations on both sides of industry which might understandably feel that they wished to be represented on that body.
A new point merges from the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) relating to the representation of the training boards on the commission. This was not discussed at an earlier stage, and perhaps I may first deal with Amendment No. 58.
It has been deliberate policy to restrict the commission to 10 members. I believe that in order to make a body of this kind, which will have executive responsibility, work effectively, it ought to be kept small. That is a paramount consideration in this whole matter.
Moreover, not only would the addition of three training board representatives, as proposed in the amendment, in itself increase the size of the commission, but it would also be bound to result in pressure from other sources to be included on that body. I think, too, that it would be invidious to have to choose between the training boards themselves. That is not to say that I do not share—I do—the high regard which the hon. Gentleman has for the training boards and for the work that they have done.

Mr. Booth: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it will be invidious to have to choose three members from among all the unions in the country?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I agree that there is some substance in that, but I shall come to an even more powerful argument against the inclusion of training boards' representatives on the commission. They would upset the balance of the commission. The hon. Gentleman rather skirted around that difficulty.
The make-up of the commission—three employers, three trade unions, two local authority representatives and one educational representative—was arrived at after full discussion and consultations, and it seemed to be almost the unanimous view that that was about the right balance.
I said that it would be invidious to choose between the training boards, but I added that there was an even greater difficulty. The training boards' representatives on the commission would, at least potentially, face the conflict of interests in their work. The Bill provides the commission with various powers and duties in relation to the boards themselves. For example, it has to approve proposals for the exercise of functions by the boards, to consider levy proposals by the boards, to decide the allocation amongst boards of such money as is available for key training grants, and so on. The representatives of the training boards might very quickly find themselves in a difficult situation.
Having said that, if one of the hon. Gentleman's motives is to make sure that the boards themselves are not in any way diminished by the existence of the Manpower Services Commission and the Training Services Agency, let me assure him that the boards will not be shut out from the commission. They will in the


main, be dealing with the agency, but they will have access to the commission. In the last resort the chairmen of the boards will have access to the Secretary of State himself. Their position will not be weakened, and I think that that will come as some relief to the hon. Gentleman. The last thing that anybody in this House wants to do is to let these people feel that they are being downgraded. There is general admiration for the work that has been done, and valuable work it has been, for very little reward; and little assistance.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: The Minister says that the boards will have access to the Secretary of State. May I ask for some more information how that will be achieved? I am sure the House will accept that it could be invidious to choose representatives from the categories specified by the Minister. One can see the need for representatives of the CBI, the TUC and local authority associations, but will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the representative of the training boards might be the member referred to in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) which will represent educational interests?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: If I may deal with what the hon. Gentleman has just said—

Mr. Harold Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to try to help. I was hoping he would say that there was nothing in the Bill to preclude any other member of the commission from being someone who serves on a training board. It is not only category (d). Any person in any of the other categories may be serving on an industrial training board. In that sense there could be a cross-fertilisation of ideas and representation from the training boards on the commission.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. He said that he wanted to help, and he has done so.
In the normal way, the members of training boards will not seek access to the Secretary of State. They do not do so now. The commission will be interposed between them and the Secretary of State, but their relationship with the

Training Services Agency will be similar to that between them and the Cvil Service in my Department. They will have access to the commission, and if necessary the chairmen of the training boards will be able to see my right hon. Friend or his successor. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman and that he will not feel obliged to press the amendment.
I now come to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), supported by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). I have every sympathy with and recognise the importance of the Retail Consortium to which reference has been made. Under the Bill, however, the Secretary of State will appoint three members of the commission after consultation with such organisations representing employers as he thinks appropriate. The Bill does not specify the organisations to be consulted, and for the purposes of legislation that is quite right. But we made it clear in the White Paper—paragraph 3, I think —that it is the Government's intention that those three members should be appoined after consultation with the CBI.
As I said earlier—I am sorry if I have to say something that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead did not want me to say, but it is true—it is of paramount importance to keep the commission small if it is to discharge its task effectually. We must therefore limit the number of employers' places to three. It seems right that before appointing them we should consult the CBI as the body representing employers in industry and commerce generally.
When I say that, I am not for a moment disputing the importance of particular sectors such as the retail sector, and I certainly recognise that the views of the Retail Consortium carry great weight. However, I hope that it will make my hon. Friend happier to know that if it or any other body wishes to put its views to the Secretary of State about membership of the commission or any subject connected with it, he will naturally take full account of them. But I do not think that we should write into the Bill an obligation to consult the retail consortium. The real answer here is that the commission, taken as a whole, should so far as possible have the authority and


range of experience to tackle the manpower problems of the whole country.

Mr. Finsberg: Will the Minister clear up one point? He said that the Retail Consortium and any other body could make representations. What good will that do? Will it still mean that the three people that he appoints will in the end come from the list put to him by the CBI, or does someone put to him by the Retail Consortium, who is not a member of the CBI, stand any chance of being appointed?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I cannot go further than I have. We made it clear in the White Paper—I stand by that—that we would consult the CBI. There are channels of communication. As I have said, it is obvious that if the Retail Consortium wishes to put views to my right hon. Friend about membership or anything else he will take full account of them. I cannot go further than that.
I hope that the commission will have a membership that has great authority and a great range of experience to tackle the manpower problems of the whole country. It will have to deal with a large range of important issues, affecting the service industries, including retail, as well as manufacturing. It will have to take the small firms into account. Its members need to be people with the knowledge and breadth of experience to deal successfully with all these issues.
One other point that has not been made is that they will need to be conscious of the different needs of different parts of the country. It will not be easy to find the right sort of people or to form a body with such a wide range as I believe is required of these people. We shall not be able to find room for someone directly involved in every sector that comes within the commission's sphere. What we must do is try to appoint members with an ability to approach our manpower problems not from any sectional standpoint but with an understanding of the manpower needs of the country as a whole.
While I may not entirely have contented my hon. Friend, I hope that I may have given him some reassurance, and that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2

FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION AND AGENCIES

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 20, at end add:
'and to secure the implementation of sections 6 to 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944'.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 51, in Clause 12, page 15, line 14, at end insert:
'(c) of the Commission and all officers designated by the Secretary of State to advise registered blind or disabled persons about their opportunities for employment to include not only sheltered workshop opportunities but also those available in open industry, and it shall be the right of the blind or disabled person to choose between these two types of employment'.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Walker: Amendment No. 3 refers to those sections of the 1944 Disabled Persons Employment Act which provide for the quota system. I am grateful to the Minister of State for having carried out the promise he made in Standing Committee to send me a copy of the consultative document on the quota system when it was ready. We received it last night, on the eve of the debate. Obviously, I have not had time thoroughly to study it, but I have gone through it.
At the risk of over-simplifying, I would say that the quota scheme at present requires that firms employing more than 20 people should take at least 3 per cent. of their work force from the ranks of the registered disabled. Contrary to popular assumption, it is not an offence not to fill this quota, but it is an offence to go below the quota without the permission of the Department of Employment. In comparison with some of the schemes set out in the appendices to the consultative document—those of West Germany, France, Italy and Holland are mentioned —ours seems very modest.
Table I of the consultative document presents statistics that show that we are discussing the employment prospects of over 600,000 people—a figure which, although smaller than in previous years, is still a large one. Table II, however, shows


that compliance with the quota has also diminished over the same period.
Any comfort that we may have gleaned from the falling numbers of registered disabled in the table is offset by the knowledge that their employment prospects seem to have weakened. Although the numbers of registered disabled were previously higher than at present, until 1961 the quota obligation was largely, year after year, being fulfilled. But, from that year, although the total numbers of registered disabled have fallen, the position in respect of fulfilment of the quota obligation has progressively deteriorated.
In the absence of any information to the contrary in the document, I can only assume that one cause, if not the primary one, has been the fall-off in enforcement of the provisions of the 1944 Act. The figure omitted from the consultative document tables seems to bear this out.
In 1972, over 60,000 firms were within the scope of the scheme. Nearly 60 per cent. of those were not fulfilling their quota obligations. More significant—this is the point on which the document is silent—in that same year, 9,000 of the firms which were not in compliance had not sought the Department's permission to go below the 3 per cent. quota. In other words, 9,000 firms were in clear breach of the law and the Department took no action.
This is astonishing from Ministers who have repeatedly preached the need for everyone to observe the law. It is a matter for regret that they did not apply that philosophy with equal vigour in this crucially important field of the employment of the disabled.
One question to which we are entitled to an answer today, notwithstanding anything in the consultative document, is what the Government propose to do about the 9,000 firms that are in clear breach of the law.
These are the sombre and depressing facts that prompt the amendment. They point not only to the failure of the Department to enforce the scheme but to what seems to be the dereliction of the Department's statutory duty. It is difficult to see how that state of affairs will be improved by the fragmentation of responsibilities which the Government now propose in the Bill.
At present, responsibilities for almost every aspect of the employment of disabled persons are unified within the Department's headquarters at No. 8 St. James's Square. Instead of that, in future we shall have, for example, the disablement resettlement officers and the blind persons resettlement officers working within the Employment Service Agency. The training for the disabled will be the responsibility of the Training Services Agency, yet the rehabilitation units will be run by the Employment Service Agency. So we shall have a division of what is at present a unification of two agencies. Added to that, there is a further division, in that questions of sheltered employment, the maintenance of the disabled persons register and the application of the quota scheme will be looked after by the Secretary of State.
This seems an odd and inexplicable dispersal of duties. In replying to the debate the Under-Secretary will no doubt repeat the assurance he gave when we raised this question, en passant, in Committee. He said then that in his view
Nothing will be gained by writing into the Bill…specific provisions that the commission should devote itself to the welfare and to the employment of disabled people. It will do this. Its remit is over the whole field of employment.
However, it was the Under-Secretary's following phrase—particularly in the light of the figures that I have given to the House—that worried me. He went on to say that the commission
will give it just as much attention as the Department of Employment does at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 3rd May 1973; c. 495.]
It was the prospect of just that prophecy being fulfilled—that the commission might give it just as much attention as the Department of Employment does at present—that provoked the amendment.
In my constituency over 18 per cent.—nearly one in five—of the registered disabled are jobless, and 92 firms in the Doncaster travel-to-work area are out of compliance with the quota. Yet the Bill offers them the assurance that they will get just as much attention in the future as at present. I should like the Minister to look into this matter and to let me know which firms have not applied for permission to go below the quota.


Over 18 per cent. of the registered disabled will be offered no assurance by the Bill. It is no consolation to them to be told by the Minister that they will get just as much attention in the future as they do at present.
I have deliberately avoided any reference to the critique of the present scheme which is contained in the newly published consultative document, or to the various alternatives which are canvassed in it. I may have been ruled out of order had I done so. In any case, the proposals which the Government are now putting forward deserve more careful scrutiny than we have had chance to give them so far. Neither do I want in any way to pre-empt the consultative procedure. To do that might let down the Minister, in view of the kind gesture that he has made. But I hope that, unlike the way that the Government have handled the Robens Report, the House of Commons will be given the chance to express its view before the Government commit themselves to any policy. I see that the Under-Secretary is smiling cynically. No doubt he felt a little sore on Monday when he felt that he had done the House a kindness by making a statement. He may be entitled to feel sore. But had he listened to us he may not have had that rough treatment, and if he listens to us now he will avoid it in the future. He can avoid it if the Government decide to give the House of Commons a chance to express its view.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am happy to debate this matter with him at any time in the future. We are looking forward to having the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
I was not smiling cynically; I was smiling warmly to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is far too old a hand to know that I can decree what type of debate will take place in the House. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. But I will help the hon. Gentleman by conveying what he has said to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Walker: I apologise if I did the hon. Gentleman an injustice about the warm smile that he bestowed upon me. I appreciate that it is up to the Leader of the House. But it is equally within

the power of the Secretary of State—the Under-Secretary's master—to say to his colleagues in the Cabinet, "I shall not commit us to any policy, on this or any other subject, until the House has had a chance to debate it." The longer the Leader of the House defers the debate, the longer will the Secretary of State postpone his policy commitment to the public.
I am not arguing that the scheme in the 1944 Act is ideal, or beyond improvement. Clearly, it has not worked. It would be wrong to say that it is the embodiment of perfection when it manifestly is not. When I say that it is not working, I do not mean that the scheme has necessarily failed. Clearly, it is not fulfilling its purpose, but the concept is not necessarily wrong. What is wrong is the absence of the will and the determination to implement and enforce it.
The Under-Secretary means well and is as anxious to serve the needs of the disabled as I am, but to canvas the Inner Wheel, Rotary and Junior Chambers of Commerce on the need for them to help the disabled is not the way that a Government ought to conduct themselves. No doubt the Under-Secretary meant well when he did that, but that is not what we expect from the Government. The Government should say that the scheme will be applied and enforced, and that if it does not work they will look at something fresh. Until that is done we ought to impose on the commission an obligation to do what the present Government and, admittedly, their predecessors have failed to do since 1961.

Mr. Pavitt: I wish to address my remarks mainly to Amendment No. 51, in my name, which covers part of the same subject and the arguments so powerfully deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). I strongly support everything that he said. It is unnecessary for me to repeat his comments. The Under-Secretary has a formidable task in replying to my hon. Friend's forthright points.
I feel that I am an interloper in the debate. Other hon. Members have served on the Standing Committee and done many hard chores. As someone who has entered the debate on Report, I feel that I must apologise to my colleagues who served on the Committee.
Before tabling the amendment, I read with interest the debate that took place on the Tenth Sitting of the Committee with regard to disabled persons. I wish to address the House on a narrow point, mainly from the point of view of a small section of the disabled—the blind. When one does this from time to time and addresses oneself to a particular section of the disabled, one is always anxious not to divide one section of the disabled against another. My comments arise mainly from the problems of the blind person which are caused by the fact that his situation regarding employment is different from that of other disabled people. Nevertheless, I am anxious that the House should realise that the last thing that we should ever do is to try to make one sector of the disabled, whether it be the deaf, the blind or those who suffer from other disabilities, the prize sector to which the House should give compassion and consideration to the exclusion of others.
5.30 p.m.
My amendment arises as a result of the resolution passed at the annual conference of the National League of the Blind and Disabled, a copy of which the Under-Secretary has received directly from its secretary. The essence of the argument is that the blind or disabled person should have the same freedom of choice on employment as anyone else. The fact that disability limits the scope for employment should not be a reason for leaving it up to the officer of the Department to decide into which employment the disabled person should go. At the moment, because of the way in which the 1944 Act is interpreted the blind person can be classified under Section 1 or Section 2 purely on the judgment of the disablement resettlement officer at the local employment exchange.
The Under-Secretary will recall the all-party delegation which I took to meet him last July. However, perhaps I may remind him of the points he made in the letter he sent to me after meeting that deputation. He said:
I understand and fully appreciate the point made by the representatives of the League, that prolonged periods of unemployment may be especially demoralising for some blind people, and create an unemployability complex'. This is indeed one of the reasons why we genuinely try to interpret the constraints placed upon us by Section 15 of the

Disabled Persons (Employment) Act of 1944 with maximum flexibility. However, these constraints apart, there is always the question of the availabilility of work opportunities within workshops for the blind which for a variety of reasons are tending to decline.
He went on to say:
It is clear to me that the National League of the Blind and Disabled have genuine fears that some blind people are being deprived of what is in their best interest because of what I might term alleged 'bureaucratic decisions' of some of our officers. I wish to dispel those fears"—
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that intention—
and I am therefore asking our local officers to ensure not only that they themselves keep these cases under constant review, but also to keep in close consultation with social services departments of local authorities whenever decisions about eligibility for admission to workshops for the blind arise.
Those fears have not been dispelled, and I remind the Under-Secretary of the case he now has before him, which I should like to put on the record. It is typical of a number of cases concerning the blind. Roger is 29 years of age and has been registered blind for 12 years. He has worked only six and a half years out of the 12. He has had five different jobs in different parts of the country, such as Yeovil, Salisbury, Surrey, and two in London. Some of the jobs he had to leave owing to redundancy.
A period of high unemployment hits the disabled and the blind first. An inevitable consequence of Government policies which led to such a large number of unemployed over the last few years has been that this sector has been hit hardest. The problem is that in industry the last in is always the first out where redundancy is imposed. Therefore, a disabled person who is employed after being trained under one of the Department's schemes is often the first out. In this case the person concerned, Roger, is currently unemployed.
A blind persons resettlement officer arranged for Roger to be interviewed at the Peckham workshops of the London Association for the Blind. He was found to be suitable and therefore acceptable to the workshop management. The London borough of Southwark agreed to sponsor his employment in the workshop, and it was arranged that he should commence work on 19th March last. On 14th March, Roger was interviewed by an official from the regional office of the


Department of Employment and was told that the Department would not approve his entry into the workshop. Immediately representations to the Under-Secretary were made, reminding him of his statement to the deputation last July that he would be prepared to consider such cases. He rejected the representations and indicated that Roger had been offered a job by the Department which he had turned down. That is true, but the rejection of the job was in my view based on valid grounds. Roger lives in Camberwell and the workshop is close to where he lives. After a short training period he would receive a basic wage of £24 per week. The job offered by the Department was in Mitcham with a basic wage of £19·40 per week. It would also have entailed an extremely difficult journey for a blind person to undertake.
This kind of decision is made by an official of the Department, but the wishes of the blind person should be paramount and he should not be subjected unnecessarily to the administrative arrangements of the Department. The blind and disabled are the only persons to remain virtually under the direction of labour under an Act passed during the last war. The absolute power of officials to decide whether to classify a blind person in Section 1 or Section 2 according to their judgment and discrimination under Section 15 of the 1944 Act should be altered. If it is possible for the amendment to be accepted the problem will be solved. But if the amendment is not accepted the Under-Secretary can make an administrative change merely by instructing his officials not to be so adamant about not changing the designation of the type of work that a blind person is suited to—for example, that he is suitable only for work in a sheltered workshop, or only for work outside. If such a change were possible my point would be met.
I urge the Under-Secretary to re-examine the representations we made last July and the discussions which took place on the resolution passed at the League's conference at Blackpool at Easter in order to meet this point.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I wish briefly to support my hon Friends the Members for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) and Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). The Under-Secretary will recall

that I had long correspondence with him about a case concerning the quota system. I shall not reopen that case now because it is not strictly relevant to some of the other things that have been said so far.
We seem to have the worst of all worlds. We have a piece of legislation which on the face of it provides the maximum safeguards and opportunities for disabled people, but which, in the event, is shown to be in default, as the consultative document has demonstrated, so that the intentions of the law are not being carried out. The Department is also making no serious effort to have the law enforced. That is highly unsatisfactory situation.
As the editorial in The Times this morning said, it seems that the consultative document is rather defeatist and it is as if the Government are saying that because it has been difficult to work this law we should perhaps give it up altogether and get rid of the disablement register and the rest. I would have to be strongly persuaded that what the Department put in its place was very much more effective in its safeguarding of the interests of disabled people under the law before I would agree to the proposition that the law should be abolished.
My point is in support of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West. First, I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to say when the consultative document on sheltered employment will be made available. There have been assertions in the Press that this document has been completed for some considerable time but that, because of the difficulty Ministers face in making up their minds even at this preliminary stage, it has not been published. The original intention to produce the document was announced in 1970 and it is now a matter of considerable urgency that it should be made available because it will be relevant to the points made by my hon. Friend.
In some respects the blind are treated better than other disabled people, at least to the extent that if they are employed in sheltered workshops their basic rates of pay are better than in sheltered workshops for other disabled people.
The basic rate of pay in Remploy for a man is only £16.32 a week at present. It is utterly disgraceful and disreputable that that should be the basic rate of pay. I am not making any particular criticism of the present Government about that, because these low rates of pay are of long standing at Remploy. The basic rate of pay for women in Remploy is only £13.24 a week, which again, in present circumstances, is utterly disgraceful.
In the blind workshops, admittedly, the rates of pay, while still low, are rather better than that, but the whole business of selecting and designating blind persons as suitable for sheltered or open employment is highly unsatisfactory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West has indicated. I have always felt that nothing in Section 15 of the 1944 Act prevents the Government, if they wish, from interpreting it in a liberal way, which would meet many of the objections that my hon. Friend has raised. But successive Governments, despite their protestations, have interpreted it in a highly restrictive manner.
There are examples in Glasgow, as in other parts of the country, where blind people who have been in open employment but have become unemployed are unable, in the circumstances of today—particularly with high unemployment rates—to get back into open employment, and are nevertheless being denied access to sheltered workshops, although the facilities to employ them are available there, the workshops would be delighted to have them, and their entry into workshops, because they are marginally the sort of people who might have made a success in open employment, would very much increase the level of skill in the workshops themselves and therefore, give a considerable filip to the efficiency and atmosphere of the workshops. It is surely deplorable in this kind of situation that blind people are being denied any employment at all when the facilities are there for them in sheltered workshops.
My hon. Friend's amendment would allow a blind person to choose whether he wanted to go into open or sheltered employment. In principle, I go 100 per cent. of the way with him on that. If there are practical difficulties, we should

consider them, but if they prevent the acceptance of the amendment there is nevertheless an overwhelming case for a much more liberal attitude by the Government. I ask for that assurance from the Minister today.
I am referring to sheltered employment particularly in relation to the blind—although again I say that there is no intention of singling out one category of the disabled as being necessarily more deserving of our help than other categories, since what is said in this case in many respects applies to the other categories of disabled as well.
The way in which the workshops are run and the Government's attitude to them again leave very much to be desired. There is a variety of workshops throughout the country and a variety of work takes place in them. But still in many of them the old traditional blind crafts of brush making and so on are carried out, often in very depressing circumstances, and the full range of employment opportunities which blind people are capable of carrying out is not being made available to the extent it should.
This raises the whole question of the rôle of the Industrial Advisers to the Blind. There is almost universal dissatisfaction with its rôle, even within the management of the board itself. It has a restricted, consultative rôle. It does not have an initiating rôle, or the kind of rôle that the board itself would like to have in relation to the workshops. Neither the employers' side of the workshop nor the National League for the Blind—representing the employees—is represented on the board, so that it is very difficult for those most intimately concerned to know exactly what the rôle of the organisation is meant to be and for that matter how it sees its rôle in relation to the workshops for the blind.
5.45 p.m.
In this sort of situation, the dissatisfaction with the range of work available, the rates of pay—although these are better in the workshops for the blind than in other workshops for the disabled—and the selection of people for open or sheltered employment receives even more emphasis and causes even more irritation, anxiety and anger among blind people at the present time.
If the Under-Secretary of State cannot accept the full implications of


Amendment No. 51 I hope that he will at least give us an assurance that the promises made last year will be discharged, as they have not been so far, and that the Department will adopt a far more liberal and flexible attitude towards the equation of open sheltered employment and therefore provide many blind people, who are at present unemployed, with employment to which they are well suited and which they are very anxious to take up.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: We support the amendment because we are desirous that more should be done for disabled people. We are only scratching the surface in looking after them, in trying to create some kind of independence in their minds and in their hearts, and to give to them a place in society. We are really doing nothing much, although the Minister will say that we are doing better now than we were a few years ago.
Let us consider the situation of some of the blind people, and the kind of lives they lead. They are always cheerful in company and seem to give the impression that they enjoy life tremendously. But their innermost thought must be, "What is society doing to help us?" We talk about training these people, but it is of no benefit to train them without finding them jobs. We must do more about this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) talked about the 3 per cent., but what can we expect of employers when there is heavy unemployment, and when even fit, able and strong men cannot obtain work? The Government must do more and more about supplying jobs for people so that we can try to make certain that disabled persons are looked after. There are so many degrees of disability that it is difficult to define any given section. I sometimes wonder whether we do not leave too much to the private employer.
When we discussed safety and health on Monday, we talked about leaving them to the private employer. We cannot do that, and neither can we leave them to deal with the problem of the disabled people. We must compel employers to carry out the Act as it stands. I am thinking about what we could do in another case. The Spastics Society is

helping tremendously in looking after spastics, but finds it difficult. We scarcely think about training spastics, yet many can be trained to do jobs. Private employers are taking advantage of some of these unfortunate people. I use the term "unfortunate" but I do not like doing so.
I have mentioned one of these cases before in the House. It is disgraceful that society allows it to happen. I cannot blame anybody involved. I cannot blame the Spastics Society for what it is doing. Neither can I blame a spastic of whose case I am aware, who is working for about 15p a day and leaving home for about 10 hours.
The person to whom I refer could be trained to do a useful job—for example, a good clerical job. He is not a boy; he is a man, aged 40 years. He is glad to have a job that takes him out of the home for about 10 hours a day, five days a week, and gives his mother some time to do the ordinary housework. His mother is in her seventies.
I know of another case of a man who was injured in the pit. His foot was almost severed, but it was stitched back on. He can stand for only a few minutes. He cannot walk further than 100 yards without pain. He has an industrial injuries pension and a superannuation scheme pension. That man is keen to work and to be trained, but he cannot get a job. There is no job available for him.
What do we do? What does the Ministry do? That man is told "You must sign on at the labour exchange." He draws his 312 day's and then goes on to supplementary benefit. That is then taken away from him. He is now getting what he paid into his superannuation scheme and his industrial injuries pension. As that man has no job he cannot claim any benefit because of the pain that he receives from his injury. Instead of earning £40 a week he is getting about £12 or £13 a week. He and his wife live together. Their children are working, or they have left home.
We talk about training our young people but we do not give a great deal of consideration to the subject. They do not receive sufficient training. The Government—any Government—must be more determined than ever to look after the disabled and to give them more independence. It must be impressed upon them


that they are part and parcel of society, that there is a place for them, and that we welcome them. That would be only small recompense for their disability and suffering. I hope that the Minister will take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) has said and accept the amendments.

Mr. James Dempsey: Our discussion about the employment opportunities for blind persons has been very interesting. It has covered a wide spectrum of employment, including sheltered workshops. One omission in our discussion has been the lack of reference to blind persons who are self-employed. I did not hear or detect reference being made by any of my hon. Friends to the fine contribution which is made by such persons.
I shall place briefly before the Minister the problems which self-employed blind persons face. The Department of Employment has some responsibility for assisting them. My remarks will be addressed to the one-man business. That is a very difficult business for a blind person. I am talking about individuals who have totally lost the sight of both eyes. They make considerable efforts to be employed and to keep their employment, and they receive very little co-operation from some Government Departments and local authorities.
I have in mind a chiropodist who has to go from door to door, house to house, and town to town. He does that along with others who have similar types of employment, rather than be unemployed. Those who are totally blind are now considered to be disabled, yet that type of disablement is not being treated as a disablement at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigtown (Mr. Millan) indicated to what extent blind persons are better off, compared with other disabled workers. I shall mention one respect in which they are much worse off. Many blind persons must take their cars with them when undertaking their work. They should enjoy the car parking facilities that are enjoyed by other disabled workers. Self-employed blind persons often require to carry the tools of their employment with them from place to

place. They must do so in a car driven by somebody else. As it is driven by somebody else—as if it could be driven by the blind person!—they are denied the parking facilities which all other disabled workers enjoy. A self-employed blind person must be taken from his car and escorted into a house or other premises. He must then be escorted back to his car. He cannot carry out his work by himself because of the nature of his disability.
A senior Minister told me only today that because a self-employed blind person has a driver he cannot have parking facilities. Therefore, such a person may have to walk one mile, one and a half miles or two miles, carrying all the tools of his job, in order to keep himself employed simply because someone in Whitehall is of the opinion that he does not require any parking facilities for his transport, which is indispensable to him in undertaking his form of employment.
I hope that the Minister will say something about the problem of the self-employed blind person. The present situation is a complete discouragement to such individuals, who do their utmost to be able to work. They should be assured of a reasonable weekly wage for their labour. I fully share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), and support his representations to the full. I ask my hon. Friends and the Minister to consider the type of case that I have described. The Minister should say to those responsible, "These people are in full-time employment. They pay for their insurance stamps and they are living off their own earnings and not off the State. The least you can do is to accommodate them by giving them parking facilities for their transport as near as possible to the town or even the house where they are doing their work."
6.0 p.m.
I was deeply disappointed to learn that, in spite of what has been said in the House about disablement, and despite the Act promoted by one of my hon. Friends, in which one of the principal factors was the treatment of totally blind persons as disabled persons, any Department could deny them the simple and elementary right to have reasonable parking facilities for their transport to enable them to carry on a good job. I appeal


to the Minister to give an assurance—or, rather, an undertaking—that he will do his best to ensure that the Departments will interpret such legislation more humanely on behalf of the self-employed blind person.

Mr. James Tinn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the almost total absence of Government back benchers, the Minister may care to ask that further discussion of the Bill be postponed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Tinn: Government back benchers ought to have an interest in this important matter.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I have known occasions when the Opposition benches have been pretty empty. I do not think it wise for the hon. Gentleman to make such a challenge, for there are often important Committees sitting at which attendance is virtually compulsory. Therefore, attendance here does not always reflect the feeling and understanding which Members on either side may have for a particular subject. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman making that observation, for he is an experienced and popular Member.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is the quality that matters.

Mr. Smith: I do not want to be deflected from my main task this afternoon.
This is the third time within the last week or two that I have had the opportunity of speaking in the House about the problem of the disabled. First, as I was reminded earlier in the debate, I spoke in Standing Committee when, through the ingenuity of Opposition Members, this matter was raised. We then had a useful and thoughtful debate.
The second occasion on which I have recently spoken on this matter was last week when, unexpectedly, I found myself addressing the Welsh Grand Committee on the subject. I see that the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) and Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), who on that occasion suffered having to listen to me, are present today. We then had a constructive and useful debate, and I enjoyed taking part.
Today we are on a slightly narrower matter, I shall endeavour to deal with a number of points which have been raised. I cannot range entirely over the Department's disablement service, but I will try to deal with various points as I go along and to answer the main strictures of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker).
Sections 6–12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 are unamended by the Bill. Thus the powers and duties of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relating to the register for disabled people, the quota scheme and the designated scheme remain unchanged by these provisions.
I accept entirely that it would be sensible for the commission, through its Employment Services Agency, to carry out the main executive functions which are necessary for the quota scheme that we have been discussing. I admit that it is a very controversial scheme. For example, the commission would clearly need to maintain the register for disabled people and to work through its disablement resettlement officer service, which it will be operating to help to get people into employment and to get employers to fulfil their quota.
We believe that it is right for the commission to perform those functions on behalf of my right hon. Friend, and that the necessary statutory duties and powers should remain with him. I can see no reason why the relationship between the commission and my right hon. Friend should cause any great difficulty. I am certain that there will be effective liaison and co-operation between the Department and the commission and its agencies. The whole idea is to have the utmost co-operation and understanding. In the unlikely event of that not occurring at some time in the future, the Secretary of State of the day, in the last resort, has powers of direction under this legislation, and would be able to do something about it.
A number of hon. Members have fairly asked why the Secretary of State's present duties and powers should remain with him. I should like to give three main reasons before dealing more specifically with the quota.
First, the power to make statutory instruments, such as that determining the


quota percentage, should be exercisable only by the Secretary of State of the day. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Doncaster nodding agreement. I think that most hon. Members would support that.
Secondly, the commission will be primarily concerned with the provision of employment and training services. If it operates successfully, as we all hope it will, it will be involved in developing a close and cordial relationship with employers and industry. It has to do that if it is to be effective in placing the right people in the right jobs. Therefore, I do not think it is desirable that it should have the duty of enforcing quota provisions.
We have improved the system of inspection of employers' records with regard to the quota by making this the responsibility of the wages inspectorate. It is by and large doing a good job, and there has been an improvement in inspection over the past year or so. The wages inspectorate is remaining with the Department of Employment, so one would believe it right that the inspection procedures should remain with the inspectorate under the Secretary of State for Employment.
There must be consideration of the institution of criminal proceedings in respect of offences under the quota system. I know that there is criticism on this point, and we can go into the matter a little later. I believe that it is right and proper that a commission seeking to obtain very good, cordial relationships with employers should not be saddled with that duty but that a Minister of the Crown should be responsible.

Mr. Millan: When have there ever been criminal proceedings?

Mr. Smith: I am coming to that. I readily admit that there have not been very many. There was a successful prosecution earlier this year, and there was nearly a prosecution in a case concerning one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Despite the controversy over the delay in that case, his constituent did not suffer by that delay. Full consideration was given to the matter, and it was referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate for a

legal decision. The decision was nothing to do with us. It was that there was insufficient evidence for further proceedings.
But I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Let us make the hypothetical assumption that it is the will of Parliament that there should be more prosecutions. That is one of the things that must be decided. If we have a sterner approach to the problem, surely it is even more important that the Secretary of State of the day should be the one to initiate the prosecutions, not the Manpower Services Commission, which is so concerned with placing people in employment and gaining the good will of industry and employers. I am sure that on reflection hon. Members will think that it is fairly undesirable to place on the commission the onus of deciding whether to proseccute. It is far better that it should remain with the Secretary of State.
A third reason why this should remain with the Secretary of State and not go to the commission has to do with the consultative document which we have just published. It came out yesterday, and I fully appreciate that because it is a lengthy and technical document hon. Members have probably not had an opportunity to read it. I have not had the change of re-reading it, although I read it a month or two ago during its preparation. There will be wide-ranging consultations and debates when my right hon. Friend will be relying heavily on the advice and opinion of the National Advisory Council for the Employment of the Disabled and other worthy bodies and individuals, including hon. Members. We believe that as there is an air of uncertainty about what is to be done about the quota it is right that the statutory responsibility should remain with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Unless the Secretary of State is determined that the employer shall carry out this obligation we shall not be successful. It is simple for an employer to get away by saying that he employs 3 per cent. disabled. There are many registered disabled who have very slight disabilities. Such people assist the employer to get round the legislation.

Mr. Smith: I know the sincerity of the hon. Member's views, which are


shared by many. There are others who take a different view. We have published this document in an attempt to deal with these controversies. It is a fascinating document, and I am sorry that The Times was not at all friendly towards it in its editorial, because I believe it deserved a better reception.
This is an honest attempt by the Department of Employment to present the real facts about the quota, not to come to any conclusion but to put the various alternatives, ranging from what the hon. Member wants—a retention of the quota and sterner enforcement measures—to those who say that we should get rid of the quota and put something else in its place to ensure that disadvantaged people do not suffer. It will take time for this document to be studied. I hope that eventually we shall receive useful and detailed advice so that we may carefully consider our course of action.
There is always agitation that something should be done at once. On the other hand, it is possible to fire too quickly and make the wrong decision. There has to be a balance. I believe that my right hon. Friend and all others who are responsible will consider all the evidence and reach a decision which will have the support and understanding of the vast majority of people who have expert knowledge and realise the difficulties.
I know the views of the hon. Member for Doncaster on this subject. He is a little unfair to the Department of Employment, of which he was a distinguished member in the last Labour administration. [Interruption.] All Under-Secretaries are distinguished in that Department. He was a little unfair because, more than almost anyone else, he must know the difficulties surrounding this legislation. It was conceived 30 years ago at a time when handicapped people were in many ways different from the handicapped people of today. Many were returning from the war with handicaps. There was a different sociological approach.
6.15 p.m.
Surely now is the time to look at the situation and see what sort of serious amendment is needed. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the Department

being very lax and not wanting to prosecute he must know that the main philosophy has been one of persuasion rather than prosecution. More can be achieved on behalf of disabled people by using sanctions as a back-up rather than embarking on a series of prosecutions which would result in only a marginal increase in the number of disabled persons employed.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there are a number of unemployed but employable disabled persons who will see what he has said and what the Government are doing as part of a massive exercise of beating round the bush? Would he not agree that the major difference between 30 years ago when this legislation was conceived and now is not the technological and manpower changes in the economy but the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House felt then that employers who did not fulfil their social obligations should have the full weight of the law brought against them whereas now, apparently, we believe that they should get away with it?

Mr. Smith: I do not agree. A number of disabled people do not sign the register. This is not because of any laxity on the part of the Department. The whole subject is fraught with complexity because of the various anomalies. For example, we estimate that there are as many unregistered disabled people in employment as there are registered people. If we were to get much tougher with employers it might happen that they would begin searching around in their factories and finding people who were disabled but not registered. They would then have those people sign the register and thus meet their quota.
A lot of people do not register because they do not like to be thought of as disabled. They are as abled-bodied as most hon. Members and perfectly capable of holding down a job. The difficulty about disablement is that there is such enormous variety. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday when introducing this document to a Press conference, "It is possible to have severe polio and become President of the United States. At the same time, having severe polio, you cannot be a man who digs up the road or does heavy manual work".
There is one point which caught my eye in The Times leading article, towards the end, where it says:

"Like the Race Relations Act it is intended as an aid to conciliation and persuasion. Prosecution is a last resort and would in most cases be unwise. But the authority of the law ought in theory to make it easier to induce employers to take on somebody whom they would otherwise reject, but whom they find with experience can serve them perfectly well.
It is true that there are differing views and that there are these anomalies. One of the biggest is that if all registered disabled people were tomorrow suddenly and miraculously wafted into employment many employers would still be in breach of the quota provisions. There would not be enough disabled people to go round. This is a point made in this document which deserves consideration. It is a question whether we take the view that the most effective way of proceeding is to have a policy of greater enforcement and prosecution or whether we say that there are so many anomalies in the quota system that any Government would be sensible to scrap its provisions and replace them with new ones which would give disabled people a far greater opportunity of obtaining employment.

Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the powers of persuasion being used at present are totally unsuccessful. Is he aware that in 1961 there were 25,340 firms not implementing the 3 per cent. quota, whereas in 1972 the figure had risen to 34,794? There are still 13,000 firms that have made no move at all and do not have even 1 per cent. disabled persons. He will recognise that powers of persuasion have been totally inadequate, but I think he will agree that there is something radically wrong with the situation at the present time.

Mr. Smith: I do not say it is radically wrong, but because there are doubts we have this document so that we can get people's views and thrash this out on a bipartisan basis. There are no politics in this.
The idea that all hon. Members have is to see better facilities and great opportunities in employment for people who are disabled. It is not quite as easy or as facile as the hon. Gentleman makes out. There are many industries and commercial enterprises where there often is

not available the requisite number of disabled people to fill that employment. If a man said "I am available; will you send someone along to me" and that requirement is not fulfilled, it would be difficult indeed for my Department not to issue him with a permit, or, if it refused him a permit, to prosecute him.
Undoubtedly there are backsliders. There are people who dodge their obligations. Please do not forget the large number of employers—despite what the hon. Gentleman has said, they are in the majority—who recognise their obligations to disabled people and employ disabled people, and often employ many unregistered disabled people.
We must certainly look at this matter very carefully and quietly, taking into account all the various opinions which have been expressed which run really from the spectrum advanced by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) to others I have heard expressed by people outside this House who believe that perhaps it might be a good thing to dispense with this quota because it is not really as effective as it should be, and never could be even if that policy were adopted.
What I would stress is that we have an open mind on this, quite genuinely so. Indeed, the quota document does not reach any conclusions. I hope that in due course we shall be able to do so. Certainly the scheme at the present time will continue to operate in its consultative period. It is right and proper that it should remain with my right hon. Friend and that the statutory duty should remain with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment until such time as a decision is reached by the Government—by this Government or any succeeding Government—that there should be a statutory change, that there should be new legislation on the subject, in which case the whole matter can be looked at again. One does not want to put time limits on these things. I hope that over the course of the next few months we shall be able to get some of the best advice we can on the scheme and be able in due course to announce what we should like. I am sure that when the time comes we shall have a definite expression of opinion from the


hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite and, indeed, from hon. Members from all parts of the House.
I have gone on rather long, but I did so because I think this subject is important. It is indicative of the interest we have had in the quota scheme that we have had comments from so many hon. Gentlemen today. Indeed, it is a subject which one can debate exclusively on its own, not especially in the context of this Report stage.

Mr. Neil McBride: To what extent is there medical supervision or examination of applicants for employment in sheltered workshops? Are there any terms of reference for medical officers so concerned on physical disability limitations which will enable them arbitrarily to exclude from employment selected applicants who wish to enter sheltered workshops?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating me a little on sheltered workshops. There is very good medical inspection of those who are concerned with employment in sheltered workshops. Whilst opinions differ, we endeavour all the time to get people into open employment where we can. The main philosophy should be where handicapped people are concerned—whether they are blind or otherwise disabled—that they should be in open employment because it gives them a better chance to be competitive and enjoy a fuller life with able-bodied people.
May I now move to the amendment which was moved, with his usual sincerity and assiduity, by the hon. Member for Willesden, West. We know his great interest in these subjects. The hon. Member raised one case. I apologise to him for not having instantly recognised it, but he will know that we get hundreds of constituency cases from hon. Members every week, and one does not always remember every one. However, I will give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that I will look into this case again to see whether there is anything further that can be done, especially as the hon. Member quoted a letter I had written on the subject.
Under Section 15 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 employment under sheltered conditions is reserved for disabled people who, by reason of the

nature or severity of their disablement, have neither the abilities nor the skills to be employed under normal conditions. The effect of the amendment of the hon. Member for Willesden, West would be to alter fundamentally the statutory conditions set out in that section governing the eligibility for sheltered employment. I must make it plain that since the passing of that Act in 1944 it has been the aim of successive Governments that disabled people should, wherever possible, be placed in open employment. The importance of this objective was emphasised in the Tomlinson Report which led to the creation of the 1944 Act. It was subsequently endorsed by the Piercy Committee, and has been accepted by my right hon. Friend's National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled, not only in our time but also in the Opposition's time in Government, and nearly all others concerned with the employment problems of disabled people.
As recently as last spring the advisory council reaffirmed its view that this policy should continue to apply to all disabled people in the employment field, including blind people, who are mentioned in the amendment.
Perhaps I can illustrate just how successful this policy has been in relation to blind people. Since the publication of the Tomlinson Report, the proportion of blind people of working age in employment has increased from 22 per cent. to 32·4 per cent., and the proportion of those in employment who work under ordinary conditions has increased from about one-third to about two-thirds of the total.
Perhaps I can give the actual figures to the House. In 1941 2,994 blind people were working under ordinary conditions and 6,137 under sheltered conditions. By 1972 the number working under ordinary conditions had increased to 6,708, and the number working under sheltered conditions had fallen to 3,238.
Perhaps I might mention in passing that during the six-month period ending as recently as 31st March 1973 the number of blind people placed in employment reached all-time records. I am sure it is right that employment under sheltered conditions and in special workshops should be reserved for those who really need it. To change that policy on the


lines sought in the hon. Member's amendment would, in my view, be contrary to the interests of disabled people. That is not to say that I do not fully agree that the officers of the commission and its agencies will need to discuss the possibility of sheltered employment with any disabled person who believes he is likely to need it.
Perhaps I should also add—this is a point which the hon. Member for Craigton asked me about specifically—that as part of our general review of ways and means of improving our Department's policies and services for helping the disabled we propose to publish a consultative document on the future of sheltered employment later this year. Contrary to what the hon. Member said, there has not been a lot of heel-dragging on this. In fact, it is a difficult and complex problem with large numbers of views to be obtained from people within the sheltered workshop environment. The document is not ready for publication. It is not pigeon-holed somewhere waiting to be printed. It has not been fully composed as yet. Efforts are being made to speed it up as much as possible. It will be an important one. It will be of equal importance to, if not greater importance than, the quota one and deals with specific points raised by hon. Members during this debate—important ones about the future of sheltered employment.
The question of eligibility for admission to sheltered workshops will be dealt with in the document, which will form the basis of wide-ranging consultations about the future of sheltered employment. For that reason alone it is desirable to await the future before making changes in legislation affecting sheltered workshops.
6.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Craigton commented on the different rates of pay in sheltered workshops and the rôle of industrial advisers to the blind. How best to modernise blind workshops and provide management advice and marketing services will be dealt with in the consultative document. We have those matters very much in mind. We know that there is controversy and difficulty in these areas, and we want rationally

and sensibly to consider how best improvements can be made.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) spoke about self-employed blind people being more difficult to deal with than those in public or private employment. We try to give as much advice as we can. Generally speaking the DROs show great sympathy and understanding and are always ready to assist self-employed blind people. We are never completely satisfied that we are giving the best possible service and are always trying to improve it. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not feel that I am deflecting his argument when I say that parking is a matter chiefly for the Department of the Environment. I will take up the matter of parking with that Department to see whether improvements can be achieved. I know only too well the frustrations and difficulties suffered by blind people with transport generally and with parking in particular.
Bearing in mind what we are trying to do on the quota and the document on sheltered employment, it would be unwise for the Government to accept the amendment. We feel that it is right to make the Manpower Services Commission the agent of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Pavitt: Bearing in mind the Minister's comments about changing social conditions and what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said about blind people no longer being expected merely to put bristles into brushes, it is nonsense to say that a disabled person, although capable of working in an open workshop, should not be allowed to work in a sheltered workshop if he prefers to do so. The Minister is only deferring an assurance of more flexibility in the interpretation of the law.

Mr. Smith: The flexibility is already there. If there is a marginal doubt about whether a person should be in open or sheltered employment he will often be given the benefit of the doubt when he opts for sheltered employment, although it might be said that technically he should remain in open employment. As I said in Committee, there is no monopoly of concern. Concern is shared throughout the House and the country. We have to provide the best possible


means of helping those who need help. We must never be complacent whilst so much needs to be done. On the other hand, we need not be ashamed of our record under successive Governments. What we have done bears comparison with what has been done by many other modern industrialised countries. We have made good progress and should not under-estimate what has been achieved. Perhaps in the future we shall be more sophisticated and be able to get more disabled people into employment, particularly now that the employment figures are improving throughout the country.
In these circumstances, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Harold Walker: We have had a good, timely and useful debate which has justified the tabling of the amendment. I look forward to seeing the consultative document later this year and hope that when it is presented we shall have an opportunity to debate sheltered employment. I agree with the Minister that this is a difficult and complex subject, but its complexities should not be used by the Government as a pretext for not facing their obligations to provide the maximum amount of employment opportunities for disabled people.
The Minister is right in saying that the Department's philosophy has been to persuade rather than to prosecute. Although I have held office in the Department, I do not accept that philosophy, nor do I accept it in industrial health and safety. That is a wrong philosophy which needs to be changed.
The Minister gave a full reply, for which we are grateful, but he omitted to say anything about the 9,000 firms which are in breach of the law. Those firms apparently will continue to be in breach of the law. The Department has an obligation to do something about it. In no other area of our social life would we take no action against people who behave in defiance of the law. Will the Minister tell us what he proposes to do about these 9,000 firms?
I was glad to hear the Minister say that the consultative document will put forward alternatives, and that those will not be the only alternatives that the Government will consider. I hope that before long the Leader of the House will

give us an opportunity to debate those alternatives and others that we might suggest to improve enforcement of the present scheme.
The hon. Gentleman did not refer to the interim period between now and the presentation of the alternatives. I beg him to consider this carefully and to tell us what he intends to do in the interim period to secure the more effective implementation of the obligation that Parliament has placed on the Department to ensure that people behave in a proper manner.
In view of the publication of the consultative document and the need for hon. Members to study the Government's views, and in the hope that before long we shall have a fuller debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Roland Moyle: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 44, at end insert:
'(e) include provisions for the making of arrangements to encourage and enable women and girls to participate more fully in the skilled trades and professions'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 5, in line 44, at end insert:
'(e) include provision to ensure that adequate training facilities and opportunities are available for young persons who have not attained the age of nineteen years and who are not in full-time education or employment, and such facilities shall include the provision of such cash grants as the Secretary of State may by Order determine'.

No. 52, in Schedule 2, page 22, line 44, at end insert:
`(c) in paragraph (e) after the word "persons" there shall be inserted the words "financially and"'.

No. 50, in page 35, line 30, after 'persons', insert 'financially and'.

Mr. Moyle: Amendments Nos. 52 and 50 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) commend themselves to the Opposition and we shall support them, but in the interests of time I will leave my hon. Friend to put his case for them.
By way of introduction I wish to refer to the White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion." The Under-Secretary of State for Education and


Science flitted briefly through the Chamber, and I am sorry that he has gone out again because what I have to say is of as much interest to him as it is to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment.
The vast bulk of the White Paper, which was presented to the House by the Secretary of State for Education and Science last December, is devoted to the future of the 22 per cent. of the nation who go on to higher and further education after the compulsory school leaving age of 16. The other 78 per cent, of each age group, as they reach the age of 16, are dismissed in a chapter of barely two pages, which concludes:
The Government believe, however, that they have identified a gap that still remains in the growing manifold of options that await the choice of school leavers well qualified by their examination results to enter higher education.
That, as I have said before, is very like saying that the Atlantic Ocean is a gap in the middle of the British Isles.
However, having identified that great gap in paragraph 109, the Secretary of State says in paragraph 101:
The further education system has a vital contribution to make in ensuring that the country has a work force capable of meeting—at all levels—the changing demands of industry and commerce.
I take that to mean that, whether the hon. Gentleman or the Department of Employment like it or not, the future of about 78 per cent. of the age groups as they reach the age of 16 is dumped in their laps. Whether they have provision to deal adequately with the problem or not, the Secretary of State for Education and Science has neatly handed the problem over to them.
In those circumstances we have to face the problem, which is that at the moment, under the existing arrangements although I think it is common ground on both sides of the House that the quality of industrial training has improved the quantity has shown no very great increase since the days when the Henniker Heaton report on the future of industrial training was presented about 10 years ago. Yet, in the Bill we are faced with the fact that the levy is to be made the subject of a power instead of being compulsory. So that is to be weakened. The number

of small firms excluded in practice now is to be increased and they are to be excluded by law, and education is to be very strictly related to training, if we understand the replies which the hon. Gentlemen have given us in Committee.
So we are moving the amendment in the hope that it will present the Manpower Services Commission with some aim in life and an incentive to exert all the influence and power it can to increase opportunities for the training and, particularly, the education of our younger people under the new dispensation which is being set up by the Bill.
A number of ideas have been put forward from this side of the House as to how that might be carried out. For the benefit of the House, I reiterate that on this side we would like to see the country moving rapidly to a situation in which nobody between the ages of 16 and 18 or 19, whichever is the more convenient, should be regarded as unemployed. They should be undergoing education or training, or they should be at work, or they should be undergoing a combination of both. But certainly, so long as they have not reached the adult stage, there ought to be no question at all of these young people ever again being considered unemployed.
6.45 p.m.
I have moved a little nearer, probably, to the Government since we debated matters relating to this in Standing Committee. The Under-Secretary was then kind enough to mention that it was a question of economics. I suggested that it was a question of Government will for that policy to be adopted. By the way the Government's economic policy is developing, I am beginning to wonder whether there will be any money at all left in the kitty by the time we take over the direction of affairs. I think the policy I am advocating is the one the country should move to, and as quickly as possible.
On this side of the House we have a number of other ideas as well. For example, we think that compulsion to attend evening classes in order to obtain qualifications is a totally unworthy way of going about things in this country at this stage. People should undergo day or block release to obtain education and training to give them the qualifications they need to succeed in their careers


and jobs. They do not want a moral obstacle course in which, after a hard day's work, they snatch a quick cup of tea and dash off to a college of further education to work hard again to obtain the qualifications necessary in their trade, profession or education.
We are prepared to accept that many of these young people who leave school at 16 do so because they wish to have no further connection with it. This has to be faced, and the problem of motivation has to be solved if we are to treat these young people properly in our education and training process.
There is precious little sign of the Department of Employment accepting the implications of the White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion" in drawing up their policies, and the situation seems to be that they are determined to do absolutely nothing extra to meet the problem which the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has dumped so unceremoniously in their laps. The Under-Secretary, replying to a similar debate in Committee, said:
we are here mainly dealing with employment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th March 1973; c. 125.]
One would expect a Department of Employment to have very much that sort of outlook when it comes to education and training. But that is not the sort of attitude it should adopt in view of the White Paper which the right hon. Lady has placed before the House.
In summary, when it comes to our young people the Department of Education and Science has dumped the 16-year-old school leaver in the lap of the Department of Employment, and the Department of Employment shows no signs of being able or willing to take up the challenge.
I turn to the other amendment on the Notice Paper, which concerns the possibility of the Manpower Services Commission making much greater provision for women to be trained for occupations and professions. Anything I have said when talking about young people generally and the inadequacy of the education and training which they are likely to receive under this Bill can be multiplied one hundredfold when the problem which we are considering is the education and training of young women—and indeed older women as well. I will give some rather

gruesome statistics, which I also gave in Committee.
At the age of 16 50 per cent. of the boys who leave full-time education go into a trade where they are able to take an apprenticeship, and, in fact, do take an apprenticeship. At the same age 67 per cent. of girls have no training at all in the occupation which they enter. In fact, only 7½ per cent. of girls who leave school at the age of 16 take an apprenticeship, and of that very small number 75 per cent. go into hairdressing. I am indebted for these figures to the excellent Sixth Report from the Expenditure Committee for this Session on "The Employment of Women". The Sub-Committee was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), and the report was presented to the House of Commons on 8th March this year. We very briefly mentioned that report during the Committee stage of the Bill, when the Under-Secretary fairly replied that his Department had had very little opportunity to consider its implications. Now his Department has had the better part of two and a half months to consider the items, matters and recommendations in that report.
The Committee makes a very important statement on page 13 of its report:
We are also most concerned that the proposed reduction in levy/grant to 1 per cent. will adversely affect the training opportunities of women.
Having made that statement of the situation as it sees it, the Committee goes ahead firmly to recommend
We therefore think it of maximum importance that the impact of the reduced levy should be closely monitored and that immediate action should be taken to stimulate training should this prove to be necessary.
I said in Committee, and I reiterate, that if I had been a member of that Committee the recommendation would have been much stronger than that. Nevertheless, that is the recommendation with which the Minister is faced, and to try to put the recommendation into legislative form we have tabled Amendment No. 5.
Here again, I am prepared to admit that much of the problem is a social one. It is still true that most girls and their families regard a job as a stopover between school and marriage and perhaps as a source of pin money after the family grows up. We must try to alter that and


make an improvement in the situation. However, I see no indication from the discussions on the Bill so far that the Government realise what the problem is and are trying to do something to solve it.
So in presenting Amendment No. 5 we are giving the Government a chance to indicate at least their wish to help in the future training of women in their occupations and professions by accepting the amendment. If there is to be any improvement it will come about under the present Government policy only within the industrial training board sector.
The Sub-Committee stated—
We therefore think it of maximum importance that the impact of the reduced levy should be closely monitored 
That should lie well within our amendment. The Sub-Committee was obviously very unhappy about the entire Government scheme. The Government now have the chance to improve on the Bill.
In summary, it is fair to say that everybody now would accept that there is probably as much talent for skilled and responsible work among our women as among our men. The way that we as a nation waste that talent can only be described as profligate in the extreme. In consequence we invite retribution from a world economic system which I hope we shall avoid. We shall not avoid it other than by good fortune unless we mend our ways and take a much more positive attitude to the education and training of women.

Mr. John Sutcliffe: I believe that training needs to be given the kind of outright priority that is being accorded to housing in the allocation of resources. Yet no sort of priority is being given to the training of those between 16 and 19, who are excluded from the otherwise admirable training opportunities scheme. Their omission mars the Bill in its vital efforts to get training on the move.
Unemployment among young people tends to be greater in the Northern Region than elsewhere, though there has been a welcome drop. The latest figures published this week show that 600 young people were unemployed in Teesside in the past month—that is, 600 fewer than in the equivalent month a year ago.
But this is a very special year. It is the year in which the school leaving age has been raised. Next year and subsequent years we shall revert to the level of 1972; there will be more than 5,000 leaving school and seeking work in the Teesside area compared with 1,400 this year.
It is well known that the number of apprenticeships within employment has declined. Between 1970 and 1972 in the engineering manufacturing industry recruitment fell by 40 per cent. At all events, it has not been expanding to match the demand for skilled labour, which will be critical in the Teesside area with North Sea oil coming in, with the new steel complex to be built, and with general economic expansion under way. We shall probably be faced with the biggest labour crisis ever if the boom which we expect comes about.
We must look now to the demand five years hence. How are we to meet this shortage? There is no evidence that industry will recruit and train sufficient boys and girls to help meet the shortages which we expect. Neither is there any evidence that we are using all available training capacity to mect the demand for labour and give young people the chance better to equip themselves to do a job. I fear that we are not doing either of these things, and present measures—unchanged by the Bill—amount to a palliative.
The training award schemes in the engineering, construction, and hotel and catering industries in the Teesside area take 38 young people. In all these industries there is a tremendous labour shortage. The skills appreciation courses give a rather more modest training to another 45 young people at any given time over a 12-week period at Imperial Chemical Industries, Billingham and Wilton. There are, in addition, 80 young people applying rather than acquiring skills in Community Industry.
I do not decry these efforts that are being made, but I deplore the fact that there is a total of only 160 young people being given the opportunity of any kind of training. We cannot just bury our heads and say that the training of 16- to 19-year olds is the responsibility of industry and leave it at that. Unless young people in this age group are lucky enough to obtain an apprenticeship or its


equivalent, there is no hope for them in terms of training or developing their full potential.
The lack of such a policy discriminates severely against the less academically able. It also denies the need to develop all our resources in the national interest. If only we devoted half the resources to the non-academic or less-academic that we devote to the academic—the students in higher education—what an impact that would have on current and future social problems!
The real long-term answer to the young unemployed is not the creation of more jobs by expanding the economy, important though that is. The real answer lies in sponsored apprenticeships which make full use of available training capacity, and this policy has been backed by the CBI and the trade unions. There is spare capacity not just in industry but in technical colleges.
7.0 p.m.
In this matter of sponsored apprenticeships, 18 months ago ICI took the initiative with my hon. Friend. The proposal came largely thanks to the dedication of the chief training officer at ICI, Mr. Parramore, and it was backed by Mr. Hurst, who is the principal careers officer in Teesside. Teesside is very fortunate to have such dedicated men. ICI wanted to give four-year apprenticeship training to 80 16-year-old boys. At a stroke this would have doubled the training opportunities for school leavers in the area. When unemployment was at its height, as it was 18 months ago, and when the cost to the State of keeping unemployed young people was also at its height, we could have had 80 in craft apprenticeships. In two years or so from now we could have been turning out mechanical and electrical fitters, turners, instrument artificers, welders, platers and plumbers—all these skills which the local economy will desperately need. It would have cost the Government £500 per trainee in wages for the first year, and thereafter for three years a very limited fee to cover some contribution to wages. Between the cost of apprenticeship and unemployment benefit there can be no doubt where the best return on money lies.
The scheme was rejected, and, frankly, I am ashamed of the grounds on which my hon. Friend rejected it. He said

that apprentice training was the responsibility of employers, and that no firm should be subsidised to use its spare capacity or others might be tempted or induced to cut back or defer their apprentice recruitment. One wondered just how obtuse the Department could be. It must have known that the ICI scheme was in no way connected with ICI's own recruitment. Here was the Department implying that the company wanted to avoid its responsibilities for its own apprentice training when ICI stated categorically that if at the end of the four-year training jobs were to be offered to those trainees in ICI, which it never foresaw as being likely, it intended to reimburse the Government.
There was another argument against the pilot scheme which was devised to use spare capacity to train a number of unfortunate people and to equip them better to find employment either locally in Teesside or elsewhere where the work was. It was said that one could not justify a pilot scheme to other areas where youth unemployment was high, though not as high as in the Northern Region.
I hope that I have made the point. This is one glaring omission from the Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friend will see it as such.
I turn now to skills appreciation courses. One assumes that these courses were made possible under Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act. It gave my right hon. Friend power to run courses for unemployed persons who were above the upper limit of compulsory school age. This specific power is not spelt out in the Bill, and I should welcome clarification of what the proposed Training Services Agency can and will do for this category of young people who have training potential, however limited. In this connection may I say how much I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) that no person should be regarded as untrainable.
Those instrumental in persuading my hon. Friend to introduce these courses in 1971 have now had a great deal of experience in running them. They have had sufficient experience to realise the benefits to be gained from extending these 12-week courses to 26 weeks. Yet it is now two and a half months since


ICI, which runs these courses, and the Teesside education committee, which has done so much to promote them, put up a proposal to which there has been no response.
By extending these schemes it would be possible to introduce day release and give training to develop the personality of the young persons trained. By far the largest category of young unemployed do not possess the academic ability to meet apprenticeship standards. We know that. But we cannot just write them off as long-term unemployed, or as untrainable. If we do that we shall create greater social problems in the future than any that exist at present.
In a booklet published by the National Foundation for Education Research, the chief education officer of the West Riding, Sir Alec Clegg, points out the dangers of those who see themselves as the rejects of a qualification-conscious society. These young people can well turn against society in their resentment at the stigma of failure, and this stigma is felt more acutely at a time of frantic social change.
I make one further plea to my hon. Friend. It is for better training allowances to encourage more young people to go for training.
I shall listen carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say when he replies to the debate. But he will sense how strongly I feel and how much I believe the Bill does not go far enough in matching training opportunities to the need in the crucial years after school. If no more is to be done to gear training capacity to its full extent, I must support the amendment the whole way.

Mr. Dempsey: I wish to speak in support of my own amendment, Amendment No. 52, and also the other amendments being discussed in this group. I do so because in my part of the country we have high unemployment. Among the high unemployment we have the tragedy of young school leavers—boys and girls—reaching the age of 18 without ever having had a job. This is the first time since the Hungry Thirties that we have had this experience in my part of Scotland.
When I first looked at the Bill, I did my best to ascertain whether any financial

provision was being made to assist in the training of young unemployed school levers. Failing to observe any such provision, I decided to table Amendment No. 52.
In this part of Scotland we are recovering from our dependence on the old heavy industries of coal, iron and steel. We are in the midst of diversification, and we have still a long way to go before we reach the happy standards enjoyed in the south of the country.
The big question is: what is to be done with these boys and girls when they leave school? Are they to be allowed to roam the countryside? Are they to be allowed to get into mischief here, there and everywhere? This is one of the contributory causes of vandalism. I interviewed nine young teenagers representing a gang of young people. They were well known in the courts for being vandals. I asked: How many of you are unemployed? Eight out of the nine were unemployed. They had nothing to do with their time except hang about on street corners and rampage through our streets in the middle of the night.
Therefore, one of the main problems is finding suitable employment for these young people, and we must ascertain how best they can be prepared for such employment. Surely one of the most attractive elements for any employer when engaging young people is to be assured that they have some degree of skill. So the proper attitude to adopt is to give them training when they leave school. It is because this training is so important that I am speaking to-night. Now that system of training is in danger of disappearing.
If the Bill goes through in its present form, I assure the House that we shall require to put up the shutters on the training of our school leavers. At present they receive a year's training. During that period they are in receipt of a weekly allowance from the Department of Employment. My ambition, in tabling my amendment, is to try to ensure that that element will continue to operate so that we can carry on training these young people.
For example, in my constituency 36 school leavers were taken off the dole to undergo a course of training, and every one without exception found a job at the


end of the training period. This shows how training is vital to these young people.
One of the greatest problems in my part of the country in attracting industry is the lack of a pool of skilled labour. It seems ludicrous that after efforts to bring employment to this district to provide full employment we should remove the skill that attracts industrialists into special development areas. Unless the Bill is amended it will kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
I wonder whether the Government realise that they have taken leave of their sense on this issue. Throughout the ages Government Departments have felt the need for training unemployed young people. When I left school I was sent along to a training association to receive a measure of training because I was unemployed. That process has been going on for many years. If the Bill is enacted in its present form we shall be unable to provide the staff or the accommodation or the weekly allowance to enable young people to undergo a year's course of training.
When I looked at the Bill I felt sure that the Government had made a mistake. It must be an omission. Surely no Government would consider depriving young people of the opportunity of training. I cannot believe that they prefer to see youngsters roaming the streets at all hours of the night instead of receiving some skill to enable them to find an attractive job and settle into some niche in society at an early age.
We all know that land and buildings capital are important, but I ask the Minister to try to understand that the most important capital of all is human capital. I therefore urge him to accept these amendments.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. James Hamilton: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to these amendments. I was kept fully informed about the progress of the Bill in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan), who unfortunately cannot be here this evening because his wife is ill.
On Second Reading I made special reference to apprenticeship training. I have put down Questions on this matter

to the Minister of State over a long period. Between 1962 and 1973 there has been a drastic decrease in the number of youngsters entering apprenticeship training. This was not to the benefit of the country or of the economy. In fairness to the Minister of State, I should point out that because of the pressures that I have attempted to bring to bear, not on him but on the system, we have made tremendous progress and some companies in the county of Lanarkshire have started to take on apprentices.
Recently I visited a sponsored school and discovered that it was totally understaffed for the number of boys attending it. I went to some of the employers in my constituency who send boys on these sponsored courses, and they made it indelibly clear to me that, much as they wanted the boys to be trained for the one year, they found that in many instances there were no jobs for them at the end of that time.
The Minister may say that apprenticeships are the concern of industrialists. I subscribe to that view for the British Steel Corporation, Caterpillars, Honeywells, and all the large companies which employ substantial numbers of people. However, we find that the smaller companies do not have the financial resources which are so vital to give boys these opportunities.
The employers and the trade unions pay lip service to the views that are put forward by both the CBI and the TUC. However, we find that employers are not prepared to accept boys of 17 and 18 years of age because they must pay the wage for the age. This is a decided handicap for boys over sixteen. This point was made very forcibly by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) when he said that 70 per cent. of our young people do not have academic qualifications. We certainly give opportunities to the 30 per cent. who have academic attainments. We give them bursaries and other opportunities. We give them every encouragement. But the other 70 per cent., who in the main are the boys, and girls for that matter, who enter industry, are given no consideration.
In my constituency there is a training school that is run by the local authority. Boys of 16 and under, before the school leaving age was raised, attended this


training school. If they take the full week's training course they receive no remuneration, but if they attend for only three days and sign on at the employment exchange they are entitled to supplementary benefit. Consequently, if the financial resources in the home of a boy who is attending this pre-vocational school are inadequate he will not take full advantage of the opportunity that has been given to him for technical training. I have raised this matter on several occasions—indeed, I raised it with the Prime Minister—but so far nothing has happened.
Unless the Government change their course on this issue, the Bill will have an adverse effect in the county of Lanark. My constituency is cheek by jowl with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). We know the problems affecting our young people. We know, too, that 7·2 per cent. of our people are unemployed. We hope that with the changes that are taking place things will improve, and that when the new industries arrive, as we hope they will, we shall have available a reservoir of trained people.
I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will take cognisance of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham (Mr. Moyle) and others on this side of the House and by his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe), who made an excellent case. I should like to add to it, but as I want to be brief I shall confine myself to asking the Minister to consider seriously the points that we have made and accept them not only in the interests of young people but in the interests of the country as a whole.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the views expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, on reading Clause 2(1) which provides that
it shall be the duty of the Commission to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the purpose of assisting persons to select, train for, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities
it seems to me that the Minister can in any case meet the point which hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind and that there is no need for an extra subsection. I hope that the Minister will

be able to make noises and express a view that will justify my having said that the subsection covers the point at issue.
There is a need to give special consideration to young people, particularly at a time of high unemployment. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) raised an important matter. There is nothing worse than a young person leaving school, perhaps having a certain amount of part-time education afterwards, looking for a job and not being able to find one, being idle for about two years, and then trying to take up an apprenticeship, only to find that he is too old. The result is a waste both from his and the country's point of view, and it leads to the situation that young people who might at a later age be skilled are unable, by force of circumstances, to acquire those skills.
The responsibility for that state of affairs does not rest entirely with the Government. Employers and trade unionists bear some responsibility for it, because sometimes they are extremely remiss in that they do not accept people into apprenticeships at the ages of 17 or 18 if they have not taken them up in earlier years. There should be more flexibility in terms of the period of the apprenticeship and the age at which it might be undertaken.
I remember talking about this matter in the 1959 Parliament. There has been some progress since then. Some apprenticeships have been reduced from five years to four, but for many trades an apprenticeship of three years could thoroughly equip the person for the work that he would be called upon to do. That is particularly so in the construction industry, in which there is a shortage of skilled workers. One reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is cutting back on local government building operations that were to go ahead in 1974 is the lack of skilled labour to do the work required. If we are to complete our housing and school programmes, there must be more trained people in the construction industry.
The Government are not the only people involved in this problem, but they should grasp the nettle and endeavour to stimulate training through their centres. The process must be assisted by employers and unions acting together to


produce, for example, more bricklayers, joiners and plumbers. Unless people with those skills are available, the housing programme will not be completed. There is a great waste if young people are ready to take up these skills but are not able to do so. The debate on Friday brought out the fact that the "lump" is not conducive to providing the number of apprenticeships that are needed in the construction industry, and the more that the Government can do to help the situation the better it will be for everyone.
For years we have been talking about the need to increase training. We have a 5 per cent. economic growth target. We are hitting that target, but we shall fail to take advantage of the growth that is open to us unless we get the necessary skilled labour. There is, therefore, a good deal of sense in saying that the commission should make sure that young people who leave school in any part of the country are given the advantages of further education and of the skills that come from training for a job that will eventually enable them to give us the very growth that we are expecting and seeking.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesborough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) on an excellent and most thoughtful speech. One of the most important things said by him is that we are now living in a technological age, and the most worrying feature of it is what is to happen to those youngsters who have no pieces of paper and no qualifications.
The people with whom we are dealing are in the age group 16 to 18, and those about whom I am particularly concerned are those who are not up to normal apprenticeship standard. It is interesting to read some of the educational reports that came out between 1943 and 1947. There were some wonderful visions. There was something called a county college. I wonder what has happened to the county colleges that were envisaged in the 1944 Act and in educational reports of that time. I wonder how many county colleges there are today. There seem to be few indeed which fulfil the original concept of the county college.
I believe that in Committee I was the first Member—though my hon. Friend the

Member for Lewisham (Mr. Moyle) rather stole my thunder today— to say that there should be no such thing as an unemployed person under the age of 18. I go further, and say that I want to see introduced as quickly as possible a scheme under which youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 are released from education to work, rather than the other way round. The first step is to do something to improve the whole question of day and block releases. There are scandalous differences in practice between industries on the question of day release. The situation is particularly bad in the distributive trades and it is worse for girls than for boys. Some industries are good, but others are appalling.
Capacity is available in technical colleges to provide the necessary education for these young people. It is not a question of having to build large numbers of new technical colleges. My first priority, which I hope will be brought into being, would be compulsory day release for those in the 16 to 18 age group. Whether it was day release or block release would depend on the individual case. I look forward to the day when we can say that up to the age of 18 a person shall be based educationally somewhere, but that he shall be released from that education to go to work.
This is a modest amendment. It is by no means what those who served on the Committee would have liked. We should have liked something much stronger, but I must not go into that now. We should have preferred this matter to be tied up rather less with the commission and rather more with the youth advisory and careers services. There was a long discussion on this matter in Committee. I accept that much of this will now be the responsibility of the commission. The least that the Government can do is to accept this modest amendment.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I hope that the Government will either accept the amendments or at least reconsider the position of youth training before the Bill goes to another place. Every speaker has said that the Bill represents a missed opportunity in regard to youth employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) said that this was to some extent the result of a


failure of co-operation between the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science.
Ever since the Plowden Report, the Department of Education and Science has been sold on the principle of positive discrimination in favour of those who, because of social background or housing difficulties and other problems, have not been able to measure up to the achievement of children from more favourable backgrounds. Money has already been pumped into those areas which are deprived. Now that the Halsey Report has been published, I am sure that opinion in that Department is in favour of every possible discrimination in favour of children from deprived areas who did not succeed at school.
It is no accident that a high proportion of the 70 per cent. of young people mentioned by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) will be the very ones who have not succeeded at school, who will therefore be anti-education, and who will move into dead-end jobs or no jobs at all. This is what we are desperately concerned about. It is time that the Department took a leaf from the book of the Department of Education and Science and thought in terms of positive discrimination in favour of these youngsters, of which there is little or no evidence in the Bill.
This is a modest amendment to draw the attention of the Manpower Commission to the importance of this subject. The training boards scheme does not apply to this age group, so their opportunities for training are limited to those firms with good apprenticeship schemes. A very good example is the firm of Harvey's, in my constituency, which has a magnificent scheme. But what about a youngster who goes into an industry or a firm that does little or no training or who enters those areas in which under the Bill's proposals, the levy will not be so serious, which means the stick to encourage firms to train will be less serious? What concerns some hon. Members on both sides of the House is the fact that the levy will be a much less serious encouragement to firms to operate training schemes of their own, and that training for young people will therefore actually decrease.
With changing technology and the existence of declining industries in which

there will inevitably be a declining need for skill, there is every reason why the training of young people should be on the decrease in some industries and some parts of the country. It is vital that decisions about youth training and the financial resources made available for it should be made in the interest of the young people, and not, as is obviously predominantly the case now, because it is in the interests of the industry or the firm concerned to have a training programme.
I hope that this debate will be taken seriously and that the Department will start thinking about positive discrimination in favour of these youngsters.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I assure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) that my Department takes seriously every debate on this measure.
I shall try to reply to every point that has been raised in this interesting and wide-ranging debate. I hope that I shall not take as long as I did on the last amendment, since many hon. Members wish to speak on later amendments, but hon. Members are apt to be very irritated if their questions are not answered.
The amendment confers no new duty on the commission, except to include among its powers one to encourage women and girls to participate in skilled trades and professions. That is a perfectly sensible, laudable and understandable point of view, but the amendment is unnecessary, because the commission already has a duty under subsection (1) which is wide enough to cover the encouragement of more women to take up skilled work. Indeed, the commission has a duty, subject to the Secretary of State's approval, to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate. If it considers certain arrangements in connection with the training of women to be appropriate, it is its duty to make them, and I hope that it will consider this point seriously.
We are therefore left with the question whether there is value in this exhortation, knowing the philosophy behind the amendment. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) is trying to do, and sympathise with him, but it is not as simple as that. If the Bill made special reference to services for men, there might be a strong case for saying that it should also make


special reference to services for the disabled, the socially disadvantaged, older workers, coloured workers and many other deserving groups. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, indeed."] The hon. Member may say that, but there are potential dangers in such an approach.
If we were to spell it out that services could be offered to various groups, we might find later that we had not defined those services widely enough. As time went by we might come to recognise other special groups which required special services, but if they had not been mentioned in the Bill there might be some doubt about the commission's ability to do anything for them. It is far better to have a comprehensive approach, and in a Bill like this it is better to rely on the broad and general duty imposed in subsection (1).
At present 5,000 women are in training under the training boards scheme, compared with only 1,000 in 1971, so the progression is forward. Perhaps it is not enough, but I am sure that it will go on improving. The Government are well aware of the need to extend the employment opportunities for women and girls. This is a fundamental problem which was the subject of the Expenditure Committee's important report which was published only recently. In due course we shall be publishing a document on the consensus of all these reports, as is the usual practice in the House.
In debate on 14th May in another place on the recommittal of the Sex Discrimination Bill, my noble Friend Lord Colville announced that the Government are working on legislation of their own design to assist in the removal of unfair discrimination on grounds of sex and to promote the opportunities open to women. As he pointed out, it is not possible at this stage to say what form that legislation will take, but it is expected that it will be concerned with unfair discrimination in employment, including training.
Discrimination is a major manifestation of unequal treatment. It has been said that it is a social problem. I agree with that. The Government recognise that the reasons for inequality of opportunity are complex and deep rooted, and that measures of legislation will not be sufficient to bring about the major shifts in attitude

needed to secure improvements even though they may be advantageous and helpful.
My Department has engaged in a study of the whole problem of the unequal treatment of women in employment and training with the object of determining what kind of action will be effective in improving the range and level of employment activities of women. I have been very much involved in this study. We are taking it very seriously and attach considerable importance to it. I very much hope that as a result of this very intensive inquiry some useful ideas will develop.
Turning to Amendment No. 5, which runs in harness although on a different subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) is correct in what he said. Already there is power under Clause 2(1) —indeed, there is a duty—for the commission to make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for assisting people to train for employment. The words in subsection (1) clearly include a duty to make such arrangements as the commission considers appropriate to assist the training of young people under the age of 19 just as much as the training of other people.
Equally, there is already sufficient power in the Bill to pay training grants under subsection (2)(c).
There have been many criticisms in the debate about the inadequacy of training for young people. It should not be underestimated that the Department of Employment is providing substantial training facilities for young people. The problem relates mainly to areas of high unemployment. I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe). He represents an area which has had very high unemployment, and it is still too high there. But in the areas of high unemployment we are providing short courses for young people with no reasonable prospects of employment, and training is now proceeding at the rate of over 1,000 courses a year. It is still not enough, but it is certainly increasing considerably over what it was. These facilities are likely to be extended in the near future. There will be more facilities for assessment and an examination of the probabilities of a


wider range of occupational skills for those concerned.
We have these matters constantly under consideration. It is important to remember that the Department of Employment is giving a great deal of attention to this area. This matter was also raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett). I must tell him and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West that the Government remain firmly of the view that the primary responsibility for training of young people rests with employers. Industry has generally taken this view in the past. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may say that employers do not do it, but very many of them do. It will be the job of the Employment Service Agency to make sure that more employers do so. Therefore, as a result of that approach there are well established spheres of craft apprentice training, in other fields, and there are also many admirable training schemes for young entrants.
It would not be right for the Government to seek to assume industry's responsibility in this area, nor would it be right for us to provide to young people of an age to take apprenticeships or similar training the sort of accelerated training available under the training opportunities scheme. The training opportunities scheme is a retraining scheme designed to meet the needs of adults. In addition to what is being done in the adult sphere, there is a better overall approach, certainly, for the training of young people, and it will be invigorated by the activities of the Training Services Agency once it gets under way. A great deal is being done in this area.
I was sorry to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West that young people on industrial appreciation allowances are not particularly happy. They have a lead of up to £1 over supplementary benefit rates, which are subject to periodical reviews. They get their lunches or an allowance in lieu, and free travel if they live some distance from the training centre. I shall, however, look again at what my hon. Friend has said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West also raised the question of Imperial Chemical Industries. I

do not know the case personally. We can look into the matter. I am advised that we have had interdepartmental discussions and that we shall shortly be replying to ICI. We hope to be able to offer some positive proposals which will be of advantage to my hon. Friend's area.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) raised some interesting points on his amendments. I assure him that industrial training boards will retain full power to mount such schemes where necessary, subject to the approval of the commission, and to pay maintenance allowances as at present for the young people concerned. Again, this is accommodated.
Because it is not spelt out in great detail in the Bill, many hon. Members are jumping to the assumption that many of the duties at present laid upon the Department of Employment will not necessarily be implemented and invigorated by the new Manpower Services Commission. Exactly the opposite is the case. Concerning the expertise of the twin arms of the commission, they will be able to tackle in a very enlightened way both training and the employment services.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is my hon. Friend saying that he will agree to look into not only the skills appreciation courses, and extending the period of courses that are run by ICI to 26 weeks, and the allowances for those, but also the four-year sponsored apprenticeship scheme which ICI has proposed? Am I to take it from my hon. Friend's remarks that where there is spare capacity in industry the Government will not be seeking to see that training is given to those who at present cannot get that training?

Mr. Smith: No. On the first point, we are looking at this matter, and I can give a guarantee about that. On the other two points, I should like to refresh my memory in more detail before giving a complete answer, but I shall look into that matter.
I was seeking to draw the debate to a conclusion, as many hon. Members wish to come quickly to our later business. I was saying that the fact that it was not spelt out does not mean that the legislation is bad. The legislation is good and will provide a very useful fillip in the


areas that have been dealt with by the Opposition amendments.

Mr. Moyle: We have had a very brief but interesting and well-informed debate. I should like the pleasure of replying to all the points raised in detail, but as time is very short I shall confine myself to thanking those who have taken part in the debate.
I can understand the resentment of the Under-Secretary and the Minister of State at the fact that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has dumped this huge problem in their laps. It involves 70 per cent. of the population of 16-year-old school leavers. The Department of Employment is not properly equipped to give a lead in these circumstances, but the Secretary of State for Education and Science has dumped the problem in the

laps of the hon. Gentlemen and they will have to do the best they can with it.
I should have thought that, from their own viewpoint, the Government would have met us. Already their manipulation of the economy is running into the trouble of a shortage of skilled manpower, just as it did in similar circumstances 10 years ago. The Government are back with the same problem they had in 1963. Admittedly, the powers of Clause 2 are wide but, given the context of the Bill, they are not specific. We are disappointed with the Under-Secretary's reply and we intend to divide the House on this matter of principle.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 158.

Division No. 142.] 
AYES
[7.50 p.m.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis
Hamilton. William (Fife. W.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Armstrong, Ernest
Hardy, Peter
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pendry, Tom


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Heffer, Eric S.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Baxter, William
Horam, John
Prescott, John


Bennett, James(Glasgow,Bridgeton)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Radice, Giles


Bishop, E. S.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Booth, Albert
John, Brynmor
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R' dnor)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rose, Paul B.


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sandelson, Neville


Cant, R. B.
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Carmichael, Neil
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Kinnock, Neil
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Lambie, David
Sillars, James


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius


Cohen, Stanley
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel


Coleman, Donald
Leonard, Dick
Steel, David


Concannon, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lomas, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Dalyell, Tam
Loughlin, Charles
Sutcliffe, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
McBride, Neil
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Deakins, Eric
McCartney, Hugh
Tope, Graham


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Maclennan, Robert
Torney, Tom


Dempsey, James
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin


Dormand, J. D.
Marquand, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wallace, George


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins, David


Eadie, Alex
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Millan, Bruce
Wells, William (Walsall. N.)


English, Michael
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitehead, Phillip


Faulds, Andrew
Milne, Edward
Whitlock, William


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Foot, Michael
Moyle, Roland
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ford, Ben
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Forrester, John
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Freeson, Reginald
O'Halloran, Michael
Woof, Robert


Garrett, W. E.
O'Malley, Brian



Gilbert, Dr. John 
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gourlay, Harry
Pardoe, John
Mr. James Hamilton and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parker, John (Dagenham)



Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Onslow, Cranley


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gurden, Harold
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Astor, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Osborn, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harrison. Brian (Maldon)
Parkinson, Cecil


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Biffen, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Body, Richard
Hicks, Robert
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Higgins, Terence L
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M L.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bowden, Andrew
Holland, Philip
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bray, Ronald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Raison, Timothy


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
James, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jessel, Toby
Roberts. Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buck, Antony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Royle, Anthony


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kilfedder, James
Russell, Sir Ronald


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shersby, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Knox, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Chichester-Clark, R.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Churchill, W. S.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Soref, Harold


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Spence, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Luce, R. N.
Sproat, Iain


Clegg, Walter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Cockeram, Eric
MacArthur, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Cooke, Robert
McMaster, Stanley
Stokes, John


Coombs, Derek
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor,Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)


Costain, A. P.
Madel, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crouch, David
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. Jack
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman


Dean, Paul
Maude, Angus
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B.
Mawby, Ray
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trew, Peter


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fidler, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fortescue, Tim
Moate, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fowler, Norman
Molyneaux, James
Ward, Dame Irene


Fox, Marcus
Money, Ernle
Warren, Kenneth


Gardner, Edward
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Wiggin, Jerry


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Gower, Raymond
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Younger, Hn. George


Gray, Hamish
Mudd, David



Green, Alan
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Grylls, Michael
Nott, John
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 33, at end add:
' (6) Nothing in this Act shall diminish the responsibility of the Secretary of State to be accountable to Parliament for the Commission and the Agencies and the exercise of their functions'.
It was in Standing Committee that the Opposition became fully aware of the extent to which the Bill diminishes the rights of Members of Parliament. It is fair to say that over the last few years we have seen a steady and progressive erosion of the rights of back-bench Members. We have seen the creation of extra-governmental agencies, boards,

commissions and so on and the slipping away of responsibility from Ministers to bodies which are beyond the reach of MPs. I believe that this has caused growing disquiet which is not confined to the House. Obviously, the most dramatic phase in this steady process was our entry into the Common Market, but we shall be faced with yet another severe curtailment of the Member of Parliament's traditional rôle if the Bill goes through in its present form.
Obviously the creation of a body like the Manpower Services Commission must inevitably be accompanied by some devolution of departmental responsibility and by some transfer of parliamentary accountability. We are worried about


the amount of power that is being put beyond the reach of Parliament, and about the range of matters involved. My fears and anxieties are only heightened by the reply given by the Minister of State when we raised the issue in Standing Committee. I ask hon. Members to examine the remarks that he made then and compare them with, for example, Questions that have been tabled for the next occasion on which the Secretary of State for Employment is due to give oral answers.
8.0 p.m.
I conducted the exercise last night of going through Questions in the Order Paper and trying to anticipate some of those that, 12 months from now, may well not be allowed. These may be Questions about the executive recruitment service, about location of job centres, about training facilities in Watford, about the numbers of local authority employees and about the employment transfer scheme—some of the Questions tabled for the right hon. Gentleman to answer on 14th June.
My reading of the Minister of State's remarks is that it may be the case that hon. Members, once the commission has been established in this functioning, will no longer be entitled to table such Questions, or may well get dusty answers at best. Some of us recall the introduction of the Post Office Corporation. I remember the interesting and useful Question Time that the Postmaster-General used to have. Contrast that with the limited range of Questions for which the present Minister for Posts and Telecommunications is answerable.
That was a good example of the very substantial whittling away of the rôle that Members of Parliament have played for a long time. But a big difference between it and the subject we are discussing now is that we are dealing in this Bill with matters of much greater importance than, for example, delay in fixing up a constituent with a new telephone. It is not only parliamentary Questions but a wide range of matters about which in future we shall be urged to write to the chairman of the commission.
I put it to the Minister of State that there is a world of difference in writing

to some anonymous figurehead, who cannot be openly or publicly questioned and is not directly accountable and does not have to face up to the consequences, politically or otherwise, of his decisions in the same way as a Minister has to do. He will be a person who can make arbitrary decisions, and we shall be powerless to retaliate. He will have the cloak of parliamentary privilege, which is of such crucial importance to hon. Members in giving them the freedom that is necessary to pursue their responsibilities on behalf of, above all, their constituents and their country.
I was told before I entered the House that amongst the duties and responsibilities of a Member of Parliament were first of all his obligations to seek redress of grievance on the part of those whom he represents. One of the first historical functions of a Member of Parliament is to seek redress for those whom he represents. Another is to act as a watchdog over the executive. Both of these functions we have seen steadily eroded over the last few years. If the erosion of the function of watchdog over the executive continues much further, we are likely to be reduced to a pack of whining, impotent poodles.
When I contrast the present Department of Employment with the Department of Employment and Productivity in which I was privileged and proud to serve, with its vast range of responsibilities three years ago, and see the diminished rôle that it has now, I wonder what, by the time we have created the National Health Executive Authority, the Department will then consist of and just what the Secretary of State will be answerable for in the House. We have a responsibility in this House, recognising that Governments can be served by extra-governmental agencies of wide authority, to guard against giving these bodies a licence to govern. That is the responsibility of the Government, answerable to this House.
Because there were only a handful of Members in Standing Committee to hear the Minister's remarks and with the opportunity to participate in discussion, I thought it right that we should bring this matter to the Floor of the House so that the whole House might be aware of what was going on. I understand that much will depend on the attitude of the Secretary of State and his willingness to


accept responsibility in the House for some of these matters.
The Minister of State went some way to giving us assurances in Committee. I want him to have this opportunity to repeat not only what he said then but to add to it and to assuage some of he anxieties that I feel. An example of what worries me is the repeated refusal of the Secretary of State for the Environment to give the House figures relating to local authority house building, arguing that it is not his responsibility but that of the local authorities. It is this kind of runing away from responsibility, the diminishing of powers of hon. Members, that I am extremely concerned about. When I look around the Chamber at the handful of hon. Members present I wonder whether their absence is not a reflection of this process, and whether hon. Members are not becoming increasingly frustrated and wondering what is the purpose of coming when the real power is being exercised by bodies to which it has been entrusted and transferred by the Government. It is that process which causes anxiety, on which we must put checks and of which hon. Members must be aware.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I intervene but briefly, because we discussed this subject in Committee. When we have an agreed view across the Floor of the House about setting up a commission of this kind, we must expect much of the day-to-day management of whatever the commission will be involved in to flow from the Department, thereby placing such matters outside the direct responsibility of the House. Therefore, I cannot believe that there can be any misapprehension about this, to the extent that agencies grow within Ministries.
On the other hand, there is so much detail in Government today that it is almost inevitable that this kind of process will go on, and it may mean that we shall have more opportunity to discuss on the Floor of the House the major issues concerning the country rather than to be constantly concerned with the minutiæ. One of the reasons why there are not so many hon. Members in the House today is that the matter has been debated on Second Reading, when there was a reasonably good attendance. It

has been discussed in Committee, and hon. Members know that the die is now cast.
I appreciate the reason given by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) for raising this important issue. It is important in terms of the House on two or three counts. In setting up a commission, it is vital that we should be able to direct Parliamentary Questions to the Minister and that there should not be too much restraint on them. It would be unfortunate if Parliament found that it could not probe what the Commission was doing through the Ministry. I am sure that hon. Members would not be willing to accept from the Table Office that Questions could not be tabled which were broadly about policy, and even detailed policy, being pursued by the commission, without getting down to day-to-day matters of great detail.
I agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster that regular statements must be made to the House, on request, which will cover the broad policies of the commission and will indicate how the commission's work is affecting the country in terms of the movement and training of labour. From time to time we must have the opportunity to receive statements from Ministers. Ministers will have less to do in their Departments with the day-to-day management of such affairs. I hope that they will not find it too difficult to indicate to the House what is happening in the country and to answer questions raised by Opposition or Government Members by means of a statement.
From the commission's point of view it is important that that should happen. The commission is involved with an important aspect of our national life and, through the Minister, it should have the opportunity to give to the House an appreciation of what it is doing.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I intervene only briefly, because one matter which I consider to be of supreme importance has not yet been mentioned. The House will obviously be interested in Parliamentary Questions. We look forward with interest to the Minister's reply about them. I hope that he will be in a position to give us some assurance.
I am more concerned about the power of the Minister in relation to the commission. The Minister or the Secretary of State should not from day to day be able to interfere with the affairs of the commission. We would not set up a commission to carry out a series of responsibilities and to legislate on those responsibilities if we did not think it right that the commission should be given a large degree of freedom. But I can conceive of situations in which disagreement arose between the Secretary of State—who is responsible to this House—and the chairman of the commission. In those rare circumstances it is vitally important that on matters of high policy the Secretary of State should be in a position to override the commission—because he is Secretary of State for Employment, and has responsibilities to this House.
I do not find satisfactory the statement which the Minister of State made in Commitee, when referring to Members there, namely, that
They will discover from that schedule that, in the ultimate, the Secretary of State, if he believes that the commission is operating in an outrageous and outr'e manner, can dismiss the members from office. That is the ultimate sanction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 12th April 1973, c. 346.]
The ultimate sanction should not be for the Secretary of State to dismiss the lot in order to get his way.
My understanding is that at present there is no provision for the Secretary of State, to override the commission on the rare occasions when he believes, as a matter of major Government policy, that it is right to do so and when, in response to pressure from Opposition or Government Members, he is forced into the position of doing so. It should not be necessary for the Minister of State to have to say that the only way in which the Secretary of State will be able to get his way against the commission is to dismiss the members from office.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: This has been a short but interesting debate. I am glad that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) brought the subject back to the Floor of the House. He said that it was only in Committee that he and his hon. Friends recognised the extent that the Bill and the establishment of

the Manpower Services Commission appeared to diminish the power of Parliament. In his later remarks he was content to refer not to a diminution but to a devolution. That is perhaps a better description of what the position will be.
It is true that on Second Reading there appeared to be a considerable degree of agreement between the two Front Benches as to what kind of creature the commission would be and the kind of controls over it which might emerge from our later deliberations. It did not seem to my right hon. Friend and to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) that they were very far apart. Both seemed to agree that the Secretary of State should not be continually intervening in matters of details within the commission's responsibility. There is a great deal of agreement about that.
We all recognise that in setting up a body such as the commission there are difficulties in striking the right balance between the ultimate responsibility and accountability to Parliament of the Secretary of State for the body's activities and excessive interference in its day-to-day affairs. If I was unable to reassure the hon. Member for Doncaster to the extent that he would have wished in Committee, I hope that my failure was due to my excessive modesty in these matters as much as anything else. It would be a bold person who at this stage would be prepared to say how matters will pan out in the end.
It is clear that there will be an evolving process, just as the relationship between Ministers and the nationalised industries has evolved. Of course, that relationship is much more controlled by statute than is the relationship with which we are now dealing.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) was a little unfair to me when he suggested that I had said in Committee that the only power or sanction which the Secretary of State will have over the commission will be through the members' dismissal. I am sure that he will accept that at an earlier stage during another sitting I went in some detail into the powers of direction. Those powers are wide. The Secretary of State can direct the commission to do anything that is within its powers to do. Alternatively, he can direct it not to do anything that is within its powers to do. Of course,


there is one exception which we discussed in Committee.
There is agreement that the Secretary of State has wide powers. There can be no doubt that the Secretary of State is fully able to control the commission or that he will be ultimately responsible to the House for its activities. His powers are very much wider than a Minister's powers in relation to the nationalised industries. The power of direction is much more extensive. In this case the Secretary of State has power to approve the commission's proposals and to attach conditions to the commission's grant in aid.
Therefore, I think it follows that hon. Members who want to question the Secretary of State about the commission will not face the same difficulties as those that can sometimes arise over Questions about the nationalised industries, because in that case they would have to be restricted to matters for which the Minister was made responsible by the statute concerned. Therefore, with the Secretary of State having wider powers in relation to the commission, the range of matters about which he could be questioned would also be wider.
There is another important point which I omitted in Committee. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration will be able to investigate the commission and agencies, whereas in the nationalised industries are outside his scope of such an animal. It does not follow that the extent to which the Secretary of State would answer questions from hon. Members, or reply to Adjournment debates, ought to be exactly the same in the future as it would be if the commission did not exist. It is right, as I said earlier, that one should be modest in making predictions in this field.
It may help the hon. Gentleman if I give illustrations of what the situation may be in the future. I will try to deal with the matters of Questions and of replies to Adjournment debates. The hon. Gentleman was particularly worried in committee about the possibility that he and other hon. Members might be unable to ask Questions about unemployment in their constituencies. I reassured him in Committee by saying that unemployment figures are supplied to the Secretary of State from the Employment

Services Agency. The figures will continue to be published by the Department of Employment, and it will be perfectly right and proper that my right hon. Friend should be asked Questions about them.
The hon. Gentleman stated that he had been looking at forthcoming Questions. He wondered whether in future some of these types of Questions would appear. One of the Questions he had in mind was about the opening of a job centre. I would like to get a commercial in here by stating that the Government are opening 40 of such centres during this year. It would be proper for an hon. Member to ask my right hon. Friend if he would give the commission a direction to do such a thing. I doubt whether my right hon. Friend would say that he would. He would probably reply that he was not prepared to do so. and that it was a matter for the commission to decide. None the less, the Question would have been asked and attention drawn publicly to what might or might not have been a need.
Another example would be the commission's policy on the training of women or of disabled people. These are categories which we discussed in another context earlier today. It would be possible to ask the Secretary of State whether he was satisfied that arrangements made by the commission in this field were satisfactory and whether he would give a direction on the subject to make sure that future programmes of work included provisions or measures to help particular workers. It would be perfectly possible for hon. Members to ask such a Question. What the answer would be is an entirely different matter, for it would depend on the policy view which the Secretary of State of the day took at the time. I do not think that future Secretaries of State could be committed to that.
Another Question that the hon. Gentleman had noticed on the Order Paper concerned training arrangements at Watford. I imagine that it was about the siting of a new training centre. Again, there is no reason why an hon. Member should not ask my right hon. Friend to direct the commission to put a training centre in his constituency, in Watford, or wherever it might be. That would certainly have the effect of drawing attention to the problem that the hon. Member


concerned believed to exist, and would no doubt be taken into account by the commission. But it would be unlikely that the Secretary of State would immediately reply that he would issue a direction of that kind on such a matter.
The last example is the question of finding a job for an individual. At one time or another every hon. Member is concerned with that kind of problem. I do not think there would be any reason why an hon. Member should not put down a Question on the subject, even if it concerned a complaint about the commission's handling of the matter. I would guess that the normal way of handling it in the first instance would be to write to the chairman of the commission or the chief executive of the agency and take it from there. But there is no reason why, if he is dissatisfied with the answers, an hon. Member should not raise the matter either by way of Question or on the Adjournment. There is the important safeguard that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration can act. The case for the individual is stronger when we are dealing with the commission than it is with the nationalised industries.
Most of the usual means of pressure to get the Secretary of State of the day to issue a direction are available on virtually any subject within the commission's sphere. I see no exceptions there. I do not believe that hon. Members' opportunities to raise matters on behalf of their constituents are diminished to any considerable extent. There are other opportunities for bringing matters within the competence of the commission before the House. We must not forget that it is the Secretary of State's duty to produce an annual report for the commission, which will be open to debate in the House.
Moreover, the commission must, under the Bill, send a statement of its accounts, and with it a statement of the accounts of the agencies, to the Comptroller and Auditor General. That again is laid upon the Table and can be debated here. There is a great deal of accountability, and I hope it is of a kind which strikes the correct balance between accountability and excessive interference in the day-to-day working of the commission.
I hope it will be felt that I have been able to go a good deal further than I

went in Committee, and I hope that in some way I have been able to allay the fears of hon. Gentlemen.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: In the main I shall be content to listen to these debates, enjoying the distilled wisdom of those who did the work in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) has raised an important point. We are satisfied that the Minister has gone a long way to meet us. We are dealing here with a totally new situation and it is right that we should recognise it. We have accepted the principle of the hiving-off of these functions to the Manpower Services Commission. This is becoming a trend, particularly with the Department of Employment. The proposed Safety and Health Commission is a further example.
We are likely to have a broad measure of agreement about this, in the sense that we want both sides of industry to be involved more and more in running services of this kind. There is great value to the community in this. There is, however, the danger that the whole process will become more remote from Parliament and more remote from the constituent's approach to his Member and his expectation of a reply. The Minister is right to say that this is a different situation from that of a nationalised industry. The constitutional position is different by reason of the clause giving power to issue directives.
We want to see this degree of hiving-off, which must not be disturbed by too much interference. On the other hand, the Secretary of State and the Government will be held responsible for matters such as full employment, overall training policy and the rest. There must be this accountability. How does that apply to matters such as Adjournment debates? The Minister was giving us something with one hand and taking it away with the other. He said that it would be possible to table Questions but went on to say that he could not tell us what answers we would get because everything depended on whether or not the Secretary of State issued a directive. Therefore, he can be questioned whether he will do so, but it would then not be possible to go into the same sort of detail as would be the


case if there were direct responsibility. We will have to wait and see about this.
It is important to give as much information as possible, because of the subject matter. There is a tendency to find reasons for not giving information. A distinguished ex-Permanent Secretary is said to have told a seminar that the good parliamentary answer should have three qualities. It should be brief, true, and should add nothing whatever to what is already known on the subject. That attitude does exist in Departments of State.
Ministers are sometimes tempted to give the minimum information. The good Minister in any Government tries to use Question Time to give information and thus create an understanding of what his Department is doing. In these circumstances, with the Manpower Services Commission, a new veil will be dropped over the subject, because it can be said that this is a matter for the commission and that that answer is all that can be given. That would be the wrong attitude. The maximum information should always be given. This is right from the point of view of the health of parliamentary institutions and the public's attitude towards Parliament.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says. I can, however, visualise a reply from a Secretary of State saying, "I have consulted the Manpower Commission and I understand that its view is this, that and the other." That is possibly what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Prentice: We are both being very hypothetical here, but the hon. Gentleman has just said that the reply might contain the words "I understand its view is". I hope that there would be a flow of information from the commission via the Ministers to the House on matters in respect of which the Minister has decided not to intervene in any way but was conveying information to the House wherever possible, always erring on the side of giving information rather than withholding it.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not know whether the reply would be likely to begin "I understand its view is". It might be

more likely to start—this is a matter which will evolve, I suppose—"As I understand it, the facts are". This is a matter that will have to evolve. We shall have to wait for it to do so.

Mr. Prentice: We shall indeed, but it is important. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would require the maximum information to be given. As I said a moment ago, when in doubt Ministers will err on the side of giving information and conveying views rather than withholding them.
As my hon. Friend said, in many ways Governments seem more and more remote from people. In respect of a growing number of problems, Members of Parliament, when replying to their constituents and meeting people in their advice bureaux, can say that this is a matter on which they can intervene; that they can write a letter to the chairman of this board, or that commission, and convey the problem to him and relay the reply back, but that there is not much else they can do. They can say that they can make representations on behalf of their constituents, but that they have no power in the matter.
We are living in a society in which that sort of thing is increasing. We have to be hypersensitive about it. There may be perfectly sound reasons for hiving off a function from Government, but this is one area where the House of Commons has to be sensitive and take great care. Most hon. Members in the House tonight will probably feel that the Minister has been forthcoming, and my right hon. Friend may consider whether he wishes to press this matter to a Division. That is a matter for him. Anyway, the Minister of State will know that we shall be watching this carefully, and when, in a short time, Members on the Government benches are in opposition, I hope that they will watch us carefully on this point, which is of great importance to our parliamentary institutions.

Mr. Harold Walker: In the light of the full and, on the whole, helpful reply that we have had from the Minister of State, and on the advice of my right hon Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

OBTAINING AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY THE COMMISSION AND AGENCIES ETC.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 4:
leave out paragraph (a).
The House does not need to be detained an undue length of time on this point. It appeared during the course of the Committee stage that paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 of the Bill maintained the coverage of the Manpower Services Commission by Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, and it was explained to us at that stage that the object of including that provision was to allow the Manpower Services Commission to collect statistics and information but to prevent its employees—although they ceased to be civil servants—from disclosing any of their information unless they were authorised to do so during the course of their employment.
On this side of the House we have come to the conclusion that although this is a peculiar extension of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, in the circumstances if the Manpower Services Commission is going to operate properly we would accept that.
But what we are also interested in is the existence of Clause 4, and especially Clause 4(3) of the Bill which will exist alongside Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. We want to know why that clause is included, in view of the protection given to all and sundry—both to people supplying information to the commission and the officers of the commission in carrying out their duties—by the 1911 Act.
The clause contains reference to the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. Perhaps that is the answer. When we debated paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 we were promised an explanation of Clause 4, but when we debated Clause 4 Ministers did not volunteer an explanation. The object of the amendment is to provide Ministers with the opportunity of making that explanation.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: This is a lawyer's paradise into which I do not intend to stray far for fear of getting lost. One

reason why I shall not detain the House for more than a moment is that I think the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) will find that the amendment does not do quite what he thinks it does, but it may be a convenient vehicle for answering his question, if I do not meet with your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman is really asking why we need the safeguards of Clause 4 as well as the Official Secrets Act. I am advised that as the Official Secrets Act will apply to the commission and agencies it will be an offence for any of their employees to make any unauthorised disclosure of information obtained in the course of their duties. Disclosure is an offence only if it is unauthorised. It might be authorised by a Minister or by a senior official.
Information collected under the Statistics of Trade Act is collected compulsorily and there are more extensive safeguards against its disclosure. Except with the written consent of the person who supplied the information it may not be disclosed at all save in certain limited circumstances which are specified in the Act. There is no concept of authorisation as there is in the Official Secrets Act.
In the Bill we are extending the circumstances in which information collected under the Statistics of Trade Act may be disclosed in the ways which will be necessary when the commission and agencies are set up. Clearly, we should not extend those circumstances wider than is strictly necessary. Therefore, we must specify in the Bill the cases in which disclosure is right notwithstanding the Statistics of Trade Act. I am advised that it would not be sufficient to rely on the Official Secrets Act because that will not give safeguards against disclosure which had been authorised under that Act even if the person who supplied the information did not want it to be disclosed.
I recognise that I have strayed from the path of virtue but I was tempted. Unless I am pressed by the hon. Gentleman I will not deal with the point which his amendment really concerns.

Mr. Moyle: The Minister has taken the hint, and I am grateful to him for his


explanation which makes an opaque situation somewhat clearer.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

MODIFICATION AND EXCLUSION OF OTHER ENACTMENTS IN RELATION TO THE COMMISSION AND AGENCIES

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 9, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 of the Contracts of Employment Act 1972 and sections 27(1)(a) and 28(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, a person's period of continuous employment by a relevant body shall be treated as increased by the period or the aggregate of the periods for which he was previously continuously employed by that or another relevant body or in the civil service of the State if the period or each of the periods for which he was so employed was immediately followed by a period for which he was employed by a relevant body or in the said service; and for the purposes of the said section 28(a) a person's period of continuous employment in the said service shall be treated as increased by the period or the aggregate of the periods for which he was previously continuously employed by any relevant body or in the said service if the period or each of the periods for which he was so employed was immediately followed as aforesaid.
(3A) For the purposes of the preceding subsection—
(a) the Commission and each of the Agencies is a relevant body;
(b) periods of continuous employment shall be determined in pursuance of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1972, and "employed" has the same meaning as in that Act; and
(c) employment in the civil service of the State shall be treated as employment under a contract of service but shall be disregarded unless in the course of it the person in question gives personal service of at least twenty-one hours a week, or of such number of hours less than twenty-one as the Secretary of State may by order specify, and the remuneration for the employment is defrayed entirely out of money provided by Parliament'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 17, in Clause 13, page 16, line 23, leave out' (1) and Schedules 1 and 3' and insert' and Schedule 1'.

No. 19, in page 17, line 16, at beginning insert:
'(5) No order shall be made in pursuance of section 7(3A)(c) of this Act unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

No. 48, in page 54, line 27, leave out Schedule 3.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The amendments reflect an unease which I expressed in Committee. Paragraph 35 of the White Paper states that
Subject to discussion with the Staff Sides on the detailed arrangements involved it is proposed that Civil Service terms and conditions should continue to apply to the staff of the commission and agencies in order to facilitate free movement of staff between them, and between any of them and the Department of Employment and other Civil Service departments.
The amendments are to make sure that that comes about. Workers have certain rights, depending on the continuity of employment, the most important in this context being that a worker has the right not to be unfairly dismissed if he has been continuously employed for at least two years. This applies to civil servants as well as to other workers. I explained in Committee that I was not altogether happy that Schedule 3 adequately safeguarded these rights in all possible combinations of transfer between the Civil Service, the commission and the agencies.
8.45 p.m.
These amendments, which for technical reasons remove the continuity of employment provisions out of Schedule 3 to Clause 7, ensure that the continuity of employment is observed despite any combination of successive transfers between the Civil Service, the commission and the agencies. Therefore a worker, if he moved from the Civil Service to the Employment Service Agency, then to the TSA, then back to the Civil Service and then to the Commission would never lose his "unfair dismissal" rights.
I think these are two amendments which are worth while and safeguard important rights, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. John Grant: The Minister has probably answered to some extent the point I wish to make, but I wonder whether I could press him a little further on this. Perhaps I should declare an interest. As I think the Minister


knows, I am an adviser to the Civil and Public Services Association, which has recently taken under its wing the Ministry of Labour Staff Association and represents the bulk of the staff concerned in this matter.
On the staff side there is still some apprehension. They have pointed out to me that the White Paper "Employment and Training: Government Proposals" says in paragraph 35:
Subject to discussion with the Staff Sides on the detailed arrangements involved it is proposed that civil service terms and conditions should continue to apply to the staff of the Commission and Agencies. …
Subsequently, in a letter to the Department of Employment Whitley Council, Staff Side, the Secretary of State confirmed that it was:
the Government's intention that after the change Civil Service terms and conditions should continue to apply to the staff concerned, so that there would be freedom of transfer between the new bodies and the Department and other Civil Service Departments. Their staff would continue to belong to the Civil Service Superannuation Scheme. All new conditions of service and pay agreed for civil servants would apply automatically. There will be detailed discussions with the Staff Side of the arrangements necessary to bring all this about. The only change involved in our proposals, therefore, will be a change of name which follows automatically from the fact that the staff will be employees of the new bodies and not of the Crown.
As I understand it, the Staff Side remains somewhat unconvinced that the job which the Government require of the proposed Manpower Services Commission and its agencies could not be performed equally satisfactorily within the confines of the Civil Service itself. I do not subscribe to that view. I do not think it is necessarily so, but I ask the Minister whether he could record quite categorically tonight the undertakings regarding future conditions of employment which have been given to the staff associations outside this House but, as far as I can understand, have not really been given in that categorical fashion inside the House. I would remind him that the good will of civil servants is very much involved in this. I think it is really a small step for him to take to give this categorical assurance that what was said outside the House does apply. They would like it on record in this place, and I ask him, in the interest of improving the rather difficult relationships which have

existed latterly, to go on record tonight as giving that assurance.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In certain respects I have already given considerable reassurance in the sense that I said in Committee that this was something that needed looking at. We have looked at it, and I hope that we have done the right thing. I have no hesitation in giving the assurance, although I am not going to put it into words, on the broad terms which the hon. Gentleman wants. I hope that will satisfy him.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

PROVISION OF SERVICES BY EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 10, line 18, at end insert:
'and it shall also be the duty of each local education authority to arrange for officers of the authority to be appointed to administer the arrangements made by the atuhority in pursuance of this subsection'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Government amendment we are discussing Amendment (a), in line 1, after 'for' insert 'appropriately qualified'.

Mr. Smith: The amendment fulfils an undertaking that I gave in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) who pointed out—he was supported in this by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) and others—that the Bill required local education authorities to make arrangements for the purpose of providing a careers service but did not actually make it mandatory for the local education authority to set up a careers service.
I hope that the amendment will stop up any possible loophole that existed, by imposing on local education authorities a duty to arrange for officers of the authority to be appointed to administer the arrangements made by the authority for the provision of a careers service.
Amendment (a) in the names of hon. Members opposite seeks to add a requirement that the officers appointed should be "appropriately qualified". I made it clear in Committee that the Government are wholly sympathetic to the


principle that careers officers should have proper training and that a mandatory training requirement should be introduced when practicable. Therefore, we reexamined the possibility of introducing a reference to training in the Bill.
We have reached the concluson that it would be inappropriate to do so until we have received the advice of the Youth Employment Service Training Board on what the training requirement should be and how soon it would be practicable to impose it, together with an assurance that the necessary training facilities will be available. It is difficult to insert the words "appropriately qualified" if we do not know exactly what "appropriately qualified" means at this stage.
The board has all these matters under consideration. It is also examining the implications of advising staff already employed in the service, the majority of whom do not hold the board's diploma in vocational guidance, which may well become the minimum requirement. When we have received the board's advice, which I hope will include its views on the timing of any mandatory training requirement it may recommend, we shall need further discussions with local government about the recommendations.
I am sure that hon. Members who have studied the matter will agree that we need to keep three points firmly in mind. First we must be careful that by introducing any training requirement too early we do not pitch it at too low a level. Secondly, we must ensure that mature people with experience in education, industry and commerce should be able to come into the careers service. Thirdly, the advisory staff who are now working with young people and who have given excellent service over many years, as is generally recognised, but who lack formal qualifications should not be placed at a disadvantage.
Fortunately, I can assure the House that once we are ready to go ahead my right hon. Friend will be able to prescribe the qualifications which will be needed for a post in the careers service by a regulation under Section 4(2) of the Local Government Act 1966 which provides that
The appropriate Minister may make regulations for prescribing standards and general

requirements in relation to any function of a local authority.
Section 40 of that Act provides that such regulations are subject to negative resolution only. There is a parallel provision in the corresponding legislation for Scotland.
I am advised that these provisions give us full power to lay down mandatory requirements for the training of careers officers. Therefore, I do not think that we should accept Amendment (a), knowing full well and appreciating what hon. Members opposite are trying to achieve.
We accept the principle that careers officers should be "appropriately qualified". When we are ready to introduce a mandatory requirement, we shall be able to do so under existing legislation. It would be a mistake and unnecessary to add a provision to this Bill repeating a power which exists already. I have given the assurance that as soon as we have the advice of the Youth Employment Service Training Board on a training requirement we shall discuss its recommendation with local government.
We have gone some way to meet the spirit which came out of the Committee. I hope the House will be prepared to accept this amendment, which is designed to meet the point raised in Committee. I hope, too, that the Opposition will be prepared to withdraw their amendment to it.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I confess to feeling some disappointment at the Minister's refusal to accept the Opposition's amendment. In many respects this clause is the nub of the Bill. I am sure that the Government do not want to see officers appointed as mere afterthoughts on the part of local education authorities. It is essential for the purpose of the legislation that the officers should be properly qualified, and if the Minister wants some definition of what proper qualifications they should have I suggest that if they were seized of the importance of this matter that would be enough.
My hon. Friends do not ask that any specific qualifications should be laid down. The Minister made some play with the fact that at this stage he was unable to spell out in detail what these qualifications might be. I appreciate that. It is for that reason that we have


suggested inserting the words "appropriate qualifications". I do not see why there should be difficulty in this.
Although I am happy with the Government's amendment, it does indicate the timidity with which they approach the subject. We do not spend nearly enough money on training and retraining. We spend a pittance. At any one time Sweden, for example, has 3 per cent. of its labour force under retraining. That would be equivalent to 750,000 workers in this country. The Minister knows how far short we are of that total.
We should be adopting a much bolder attitude. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe), in an admirable and clear thinking speech, talked about the less academically gifted. This is an aspect of the problem of training for employment and retraining which has occupied my mind for a long time.
The waste of the potential of young people is criminal folly. When one recognises that 80 per cent. of the population leave school at 15 and have no form of education afterwards, one sees clearly that it is disastrous not only to the people involved but to the country's economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) came near to the truth when he pointed to the problem as being one of the major causes of delinquency.
9.0 p.m.
It is a stupid policy to restrict spending to a great extent to the academically gifted so that they may have pieces of paper which are called qualifications. But I go further than this. Our relative failure—I put it no higher—as an industrial nation stems from our inability to grasp the necessity of a measure such as this. Commendable though this legislation is, I believe we should be geared to this whole policy as a matter of routine continuation, not as something we have thought about and brought forward as an adjunct. It is the most important part of our industrial potential as a major industrial nation.
We all need training and retraining. There is hardly a profession or industry in which both men and women, after a time, do not require retraining. This applies to doctors as well as to engineers. Most skills require updating.
I do not intend to make a long intervention in the debate. I did not serve on the Committee. However, I congratulate those hon. Members who hammered out the Bill, which has a considerable amount to commend it
Regarding these officers who are to he appointed by the local authorities, I believe we must bear in mind the necessity for a certain degree of boldness. This is not merely a matter of embarking upon an attempt to solve an immediate problem. As everyone knows, in industrial areas there is an immediate problem of the necessity to train young people for employment. This is a matter on which the future of the nation is at stake. I believe that the Government should think again and insist upon appropriate qualifications for the officers who are to be appointed by the local authorities. We should be thinking in terms not merely of what will happen tomorrow, but of the longer-term industrial requirements of this country as a whole.

Mr. John Page: I want, first, to comment on the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Dr. Miller). I appreciate interventions by hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee. It is annoying how often the Report stage of a Bill seems to be a warming up of the arguments that have been deployed in Committee. It is most refreshing when hon. Members can give us new insights.
On the other hand, I have a feeling that because the hon. Gentleman was not on the Committee he missed the genuine enthusiasm of my hon. Friend and the Minister of State and the momentum of the Department behind them in this whole affair. Those who were on the Committee are probably more enthusiastic about the determination of the Government and the Department to make a success of this than are those who were not.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having carried out the undertaking that he gave to the Committee. It has gone all the way to satisfy me, bearing in mind that the clause comes under the part of the Bill that deals with careers services of education authorities. The amendment underlines the Government's intention to ensure that someone who is not the commissioner or the welfare


officer or the deputy assistant park superintendent is available to do the job.
I wonder whether sub-amendment (a), which uses the phrase "appropriately qualified", means something or nothing. If it means something, it should mean "qualified to a certain degree". My hon. Friend said that he does not consider that it is up to us to say that only those with certain qualifications should be admitted as careers officers. One has to say either that they have to be qualified, or they do not have to be qualified. The phrase "appropriately qualified", though fairly inoffensive, does not add much to the strength of the argument.
The strength of the case lies in the fact that my hon. Friend has given an assurance that the Secretary of State has power to lay down what the standards shall be. The House will watch the position, and I believe that it will be watched carefully by the careers officers themselves, who have brought great pressure to bear on hon. Members to get them to appreciate their point of view and their interest in the Bill. The careers officers are able people and they will ensure that the standards which they wish to see introduced are maintained over the years.

Mr. Kinnock: My intervention will be brief. I recall that in a similar debate in Committee the Under-Secretary was good enough to congratulate me on a long but interesting speech. I hope that tonight he will congratulate me on a short but interesting one.
The Minister has been forthcoming. He has met the demand made in Committee by his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who asked that there should be set up
a careers advisory service which shall be supervised by a trained career officer".
The Minister has gone as far as adopting the first part of that sentence, hence his hon. Friend's congratulations.
We are mollified by what the Minister said about the powers in the Local Government Act 1966 and the determination that he showed to use those powers to ensure that when the appropriate information was available to him following the investigations and deliberations of the

Youth Employment Service Training Board he would as quickly as was practicable, and following reasonable consultations with local authorities, see to it that youth employment officers held appropriate qualifications, whatever they might be.
We recognise, as do the careers officers, that it is much more satisfactory that there should be deliberate and specific qualifications for such an important job. I am glad that the Minister, in accepting the principle that each local education authority should arrange for officers of that authority to be appointed to administer its arrangements in pursuance of the subsection, is also acknowledging that there is no definite commitment to introduce appropriate qualifications for careers officers.
In order to show that there is unanimity about this, the Minister gave an undertaking, bearing in mind the need to bring into the careers service people of maturity and experience outside formal education, that safeguards will be provided for those who continue in the youth service without formal qualifications to provide a useful service. We welcome the Minister's undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 19, after may', insert:
',and shall so far as the Secretary of State directs it to do so,'.
This amendment fulfils another undertaking that I gave to the Committee. In our discussions, we were all agreed that the LEA careers service must be available to young people who had left education but wanted to go to the careers officer for further guidance and help. It is very important that those young people should have a choice between the LEA service and the general employment service provided by the new commission.
Some hon. Members would prefer that these youngsters should go to the LEA service and not have the option of using the commission's service. But whatever our views on that—I am prepared to accept that there is a big division on this point—it is accepted on both sides that the LEA careers service must be available for these young people if they want to use it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan), who is not with us tonight, among others, pointed out that, although the LEA had power under the Bill to provide a careers service for those who had left education, it was possible that some LEAs might choose not to exercise that power. In that case, the young person would not be able to go back to the careers service even if he or she wanted to.
This amendment seeks to overcome that problem by providing that the LEA will have not only a power to provide a service to those who have left education but a duty in so far as the Secretary of State directs it to do so. As I said in Committee, I have not the slightest doubt that in practice LEAs will make their services available to these young people. Indeed, I am sure that they will be eager to do so. The amendment ensures that, in the odd case—it would be a very odd case—in which the LEA opted not to provide this service to young people, the Secretary of State might direct that it did so.
Although the amendment may not go quite so far as some hon. Members opposite would have liked, I hope that all hon. Members will agree that it is a valuable strengthening of the Bill. It covers a problem which we all agreed existed as the Bill was previously drafted. The Bill will certainly be in much better shape as a result of the amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I do not want to seem churlish or ungrateful, but the Under-Secretary is assuming that, by and large, local education authorities will do what is expected of them by the Government and the Bill. But he recognised the anxieties that we expressed in Committee and has responded to them by now putting in a power which will enable the Secretary of State to intervene if some local education authority does not do it, and to compel it to do so.
The same result could have been achieved by removing the word "may" from line 19 on page 10 and inserting the word "shall". That would have been much simpler and very straightforward. It would have put the matter beyond doubt.
However, at least we are grateful to have had a crumb from the hon. Gentleman for all the advice that we have given to him. I hope that the Secretaries of State, in the plural, will bear in mind, even if the hon. Gentleman cannot respond in terms of an amendment, the very strong arguments which we deployed—I shall not repeat the arguments; the Government are very familiar with them by now—for giving the sole responsibility for placing young persons up to the age of 18 in employment, or, as we would have had it, those who have not attained the age of 19, to the careers guidance people.

Mr. John Page: I thank my hon. Friend again for having bowed to the good sense of the Committee. This is more than a crumb. It is at least a bread roll, if not a loaf. I am half way through my dinner and my mind is on such matters. I always took the view that the White Paper gave an undertaking that this was a braces and belt matter and not "either/or". Local authorities have received a very clear direction from the Under-Secretary that they are expected, unless there are very special circumstances, to make the services of the careers advisory service available to all young people up to the age of 18.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was straightforward, as usual. He was very clear about this matter. I shall fold this page of HANSARD and put it away in the back of my wallet. I am sure that Harrow will never backslide in the manner of some local authorities which may try to renege on this. I shall be able to hand the page of HANSARD to any hon. Member who is dissatisfied with the services being offered to his constituents by his local authority. This strengthens the matter a good deal. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, Amendment No. 13, in page 10, line 37, after first 'and', insert 'persons'.
This is a purely drafting amendment, to remove a possible ambiguity in the present text. Subsection (3)(a) provides that the arrangements that a local education authority makes in pursuance of


subsections (1) and (2) shall be arrangements
for the giving of assistance by collecting and furnishing information about persons seeking and offering employment and providing facilities for training.
The intention of the last few words is that the LEA should collect and furnish information about persons providing facilities for training. But as the words stand, they could be misread to mean that the LEA is to provide the facilities for training. The amendment makes the meaning perfectly clear, and it can be accepted without difficulty.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 16, leave out 'arrangements' and insert:
'temporary arrangements for such period as the Secretary of State may determine'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 15 and 18.

Mr. Walker: I have to move Amendment No. 14 in order to speak on this subject but in view of Amendment No. 15 I intend to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
My amendment was tabled as a "belt and braces" arrangement to ensure that the Under-Secretary carried out an undertaking that he gave in Standing Committee that the transitional arrangements under which the Commission would carry out temporarily the functions of the local education authorities would indeed be purely temporary. I do not mean to question the Under-Secretary's intentions or integrity in so doing. Of course, he has fulfilled his undertaking in the form of Amendment No. 15 and in the light of that I merely express my gratitude to him. It represents a bigger crumb than the last, and we appreciate it. As I have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I intend to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am happy that the amendments reflect a refreshing unanimity of view between both sides of the House. Perhaps I had better explain the provisions of the Government amendment. Clause 8(5) provides that LEAs may make arrangements with the commission for the

commission to perform the LEAs careers services function on its behalf. Provisions of this sort were necessary for the transitional period with some LEAs which did not have a careers service but which would be setting one up.
It was strongly represented by a number of hon. Members on both sides that these provisions should be only temporary, to rule out the possibility that some LEAs might try to avoid their responsibilities by leaving the commission to provide the service on their behalf permanently. I said in Committee that we accepted the principle that this power should be transitional with certain special exceptions but after full consideration I have decided that the right course is to make the power transitional only. It is not practical to define any possible exception in a way which would be workable and in a way which would preserve the basic principle. The Government amendment simply gives the Secretary of State power to terminate this and associated provisions by order.
It is right to provide for termination by order rather than trying to set up a specific time limit and I am glad that the amendment to which the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) spoke so briefly took the same line. We cannot be sure at present how long this transitional period should be, and we do not want to stipulate one which is too long or too short. It is something which should be settled in consultation with local government after the new arrangements come into force.
The Government amendment also enables us to fix a terminal date in relation to Scotland, because the new arrangements will not begin in Scotland until more than a year after they start in England and Wales, because of the difference in the date of local government reorganisation. Furthermore, many education authorities in Scotland—more than in England and Wales—do not at present provide a careers service. It may be necessary to have a longer transitional period in Scotland, England and Wales. That does not mean that we have any intention of letting transitional periods drag on unnecessarily. This needs to be settled by consultation with local government.
I am grateful for the spirit with which our amendment has been received and I have no objection to the Opposition's


having tabled one of such similarity, as there has been such unanimity of feeling on both sides.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 11, line 33, at end insert:
'(5A) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the preceding subsection, subsection (5) of the following section, this subsection and any arrangements in force by virtue of the preceding subsection or the said subsection (5) shall cease to have effect on a day specified in the order; and different days may be specified in pursuance of this subsection in relation to Scotland and the rest of Great Britain'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith]

Clause 11

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 14, line 3, at end insert:
'and such sums shall include a sum not less than £35 million in each full year which shall be payable in respect of the key training activities of Industrial Training Boards, and the administrative expenses of such Boards, and for the promotion of training in sectors of employment not covered by Boards, and such sums shall be adjusted each year to maintain its value at the level it had in 1973'.
This amendment to some extent reverses an attitude I expressed in Standing Committee. I expressed the view then that it was undesirable to write into the Bill the £35 million to £40 million we were discussing—the sum referred to in the Government's discussions prior to the production of the White Paper.
I was prompted, among other reasons, to reverse that view by my growing fear, which was justified this week, that the Government might find it desirable, due to the changing economic circumstances, to attack public expenditure. I thought it would be advisable, therefore, if this somewhat derisory sum of £35 million was written into the Bill as a firm commitment, with the proviso for the automatic adjustment of its value in an inflationary situation. The wording of the amendment follows the wording of paragraph 65 of the White Paper and the words used by the Secretary of State on Second Reading—words which are nowhere reflected in the Bill.
I repeat my belief that the £35 million is wholly inadequate. That view is shared by many, if not most, people concerned with industrial training. The Road Transport Industry Training Board, one of the biggest boards, said:
£35 million is inadequate if impetus is to be maintained.
The Heating and Ventilating Contractors' Association said:
The proposed annual budget of £35 million would seem to be inadequate to meet industry's demands upon it as envisaged in the White Paper
The Construction Industry Training Board said:
More money is needed than the £35 million. The sum is inadequate.
The TUC General Council
. .did not believe that the £25 million to £40 million was adequate.
The Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board said:
The provision of £25 million to £40 million appears totally inadequate and can be expected to result in a decline in training activities.
I will not weary the House with more quotes, but these are typical of many that have reached the Opposition and, I am sure, the Government. I put them before the House so that it may be clearly seen that we are reflecting the view of those engaged in, and concerned about, industrial training, including many employers. It is part of our fear that the Government will allow even this inadequate sum to be eroded by inflation and nibbled away by their attacks on public expenditure.
I hope that the Minister will amplify and clarify the statement made by the Chancellor on Monday. Will he tell us where the further £6 million will be spent and whether the proposed eight months' deferment of the commencement of the new arrangements is firmly fixed, or can we expect further revisions? It is an extraordinary situation when one Minister gives what appears to be a firm, clear and categorical statement in Committee only a week or two ago about the dates of commencement of different parts of the Bill and then another Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, comes to the House this week and changes what the first Minister said. That not only creates doubt about the credibility of Ministers' statements but it creates doubt


and confusion amongst those who even-tually have to implement the provisions of the Bill.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that some of the training boards—I cannot speak for all of them—are very glad that there has been a postponement for eight months? That is because they are not yet in a position to run the new arrangement.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are many training boards which would be pleased if the whole arrangement was permanently deferred. That is hardly an answer to the point which I am making. During a few weeks one Minister's statement was rebutted by another Minister. Such an event can only cast doubt on the credibility and the reliability of Ministers' statements.
I return to the central sum of £35 million. It seems clear not only from the comments of the boards but from a scrutiny of the figures in "Training for the Future" that the totality of training activities is bound to be reduced. The money will have to be allocated to the different purposes set out in the White Paper which are referred to in the amendment. There are bound to be cuts in the activities of the boards because the boards must necessarily budget in advance. By now they must have worked out the worst. They must be told quickly. We are entitled to know as well so that we shall know which training activities will be cut back.
How much of the £35 million will go to the Engineering Industry Training Board? If we recognise that there are about 20 boards, how much will be left in the bowl for the others to scramble over? I am pleased to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us whether the agricultural, horticultnral and forestry training board's grant of £1·9 million is coming out of the £35 million or whether it is coming from another source.
We have been told that the electricity and gas industry training boards are to go. We are entitled to know whether

the Government's grant will be extended to cover their administrative costs. Will they be expected to provide their administrative costs from their revenue whilst private industry will largely receive Government grants which are, in effect, Government subsidies? Will that be equally applicable to the other nationalised industries, all of which are providing adequate training facilities? All the nationalised industries are doing a first-rate training job.
It seems incredible that the nationalised industries will be required to provide their administrative costs out of their own revenue whilst private industry is to be subsidised by Government grant. It seems that the Government are trapped between an electoral commitment which was designed to win the support of the small and backward employers who were loth to pay the industrial training levy, whose support the Government wanted and who by and large were the people doing a poor job of industrial training, and the new-found realisation that the inevitable consequence of implementing their pledged commitment would be to diminish industrial training at a time when expansion would be needed. The course on which they have embarked commits them to yet a further subsidy to private industry, a cut-back on our training effort, and not only the sacrifice of our industrial and economic seed corn but the frustration of the hopes and ambitions of many of our young people.

Mr. Dempsey: I want briefly to comment on the implications of the amendment. The Government have had sad failings in their thinking on industrial training. In 1972, £215 million was put into industrial training by industrialists, but now the maximum under the Bill will be £35 million. That is a reduction of £180 million, or 84 per cent. of the total normally expended on industrial training. It is a very serious situation. I cannot understand where the Government intend to find the difference. Does it mean that the 84 per cent. reduction is bound to result in a reduction in industrial training, or are the Government so idealistic that they think industrialists will provide the money?
Now that employers with fewer than 120 employees are exempt from the levy, have the Government considered the


implications of what they propose? It will involve 17,700 firms, employing a total work force of 490,000. A study of industrial training reveals that small firms employ the bulk of apprentices. I know of a large firm in Lanarkshire which has international connections and is a large employer of labour but does not engage a single apprentice. The firm poaches them all after the small firms have trained them by offering them attractive conditions. Statistics show that over the past eight years large firms have reduced their apprentice intake by 50 per cent.—a substantial amount.
The small firms upon which we depend to train apprentices are opting out because they have been exempted from the levy. If the Minister thinks that they will automatically take part when they are entitled to be exempted, he and the Government are living in cloud cuckoo land.
In my constituency we have an automobile group training association and an engineering group training association called LETA. Our trainee places numbered 200, but they have fallen to about 124 since the Government introduced exemption from the levy. We have all those vacant places, and not a hope of making them up. If this further exemption takes place we shall have to consider whether it is possible to continue a training establishment in my constituency. Incidentally, it was the first in Scotland. We pioneered this form of training. This is the implication of the lack of financial provision in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) referred to the £35 million, and I have drawn attention to the £215 million. There is a leeway with not a snowball's chance of it ever being made up. It is bound to have disastrous consequences for the industrial training of apprentices. It will certainly have such consequences in my constituency, in North Lancashire. It is my duty to draw the Minister's attention to this serious situation. I have quoted these figures to try to impress on him the seriousness of the inadequate provision in the Bill.
The Minister ought to tell us whether the Chancellor's statement means that there will be a postponement of the operation of the inadequate £35 million from August 1974, when it was due to

be introduced, until April 1975. If that is the implication of the Chancellor's statement, may I ask where the training establishments will get the money needed during the eight-month period to pay for the on-cost of running the training centres and providing all the necessary equipment for the training? The money will not fall from the trees in Scotland, neither will it come from the gas. It has to come from somewhere. It has been coming from the grant on the one hand and the levy on the other, but this is now in danger.
A small employer probably receives a grant of £600 for the training of apprentices. When we bear in mind that the employer is losing that apprentice's skill, production and service the average cost works out at nearer £1,200 with a deficit of £600. Where will that come from? The employer has now opted out. He is not responsible for the levy. Will he pay the additional £600? I cannot visualise many small employers in my constituency or in the West of Scotland being willing to meet such a payment. This means there will be a further rundown in the number of apprentices, and sooner or later the question will arise whether the training establishments are viable units I regret to say that at the moment we have not ruled out the possibility of considering closing dates for some centres.
It is absolutely tragic in view of the necessity to train our young people. We have heard about the importance of skills. This is a serious situation, and I want the Minister and the Government to get down from their ivory tower, to the grass roots, so that the implications of this disastrous policy—reducing the amount of money available for industrial training by £180 million—will be realised. I hope that even at this late hour the Government will have second thoughts and will appreciate that we are talking not about millions of pounds but about the future of young girls and boys, our future citizens.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I expected to hear the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) and indeed perhaps the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) on this subject, but I did not expect the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie to ascend so far into


the clouds. He certainly disappeared from my sights in some of the things he was saying. Where he was getting the figures from I do not know. Perhaps I should have a private conversation with him because I would be getting a little far from the amendment if I were to follow some of his flights of fancy. I understand his anxiety, however irrelevant some of it may have been to this amendment.
I ought to acknowledge that the hon. Member was right in certain respects; namely, the timetable in relation to the Government's intention to make public funds available for the administrative expenses of the boards to encourage key training activities. In fact, the £35 million has been changed by what was said in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday.
As I say, I was not quite sure where the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie was getting some of his figures, and I could not understand where he thought the training boards had been getting their money from hitherto. I will sort that one out with him.
The fact remains that as a result of the postponement, the levy will continue; that is, for a limited period. That is how the boards have been financed in the past.
As the hon. Member for Doncaster knows, our original intention was that the new system should start from 1st August 1974. But now, as the Chancellor has said, the plans for meeting the expenditure of training boards out of Government funds will be deferred by eight months. This postponement includes the financing of the key training activities and the provision of services to sectors not covered by the boards, the areas which we have sometimes in the earlier stages of the Bill referred to as the gaps.
Equally, it will not be possible to introduce statutory levy exemption schemes before then, or the 1 per cent. limit on levy, or the new small firm exclusion requirements. I recognise that this is a matter which will disappoint my hon. Friends, but I am sure they will appreciate the overriding concern to cut down on public expenditure.
So boards will need to continue to operate the existing levy grant system until the end of March 1975. I am afraid—and I acknowledge it straight away—

that this is bound to cause some concern amongst training boards which have been working hard to prepare their plans for the new system. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) pointed out that in some cases they might find the delay even beneficial in getting on with their plans. If it has cause inconvenience, that is something we must all regret. It is certainly disappointing for some firms which are looking towards exemption or exclusion, as the case may be, under the new system.
However, it is fair to say that we know that the trend in a number of industrial training boards has been to move towards an exemption-type approach, even under the existing scheme of things, and there has been a strong tendency to exclude more small firms. I have no doubt whatsoever that that is likely to continue. Obviously the postponement will cause some problems. Nevertheless, it is an eight-months' postponement only, and the problems which it causes have to be set against the clear need, which my right hon. Friend defined, to take action now to sustain the steady growth in 1974, 1975 and beyond.
I would say that postponing the change in the system—and here I cross swords with the hon. Gentleman—is something which is different from slashing the budgets of the training boards after the new system has been introduced.
The hon. Gentleman complained once again about the inadequacy of the £35 million. He can complain about it, but he was reading in the main—unless I am mistaken—from statements which were made before it was known that the intention was to move towards a levy exemption system, and that there would be an element of levy still available to the boards. Sometimes that is forgotten.

Mr. Harold Walker: To correct the wrong impression of the Minister, each of the quotations I gave was of remarks made either in Committee or on Second Reading. I could have given many more.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am still glad that I made that remark, because many people concerned with training have not grasped that the £35 million will not be the amount of money spent on industrial training. There will remain a levy element. The sooner that message gets across, the more reassuring it will be


to those who care about the future of training.
I was asked about money for the Agricultural Training Board. That is financed out of the Vote of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so it is not affected. I was also asked where the extra £6 million mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday will go and whether it will do anything to help. There has been a vast extension of the training opportunity scheme, which has been a considerable success since it was launched last year. We have a target of 40,000 people to train this year, and the £6 million is in the main needed for the higher cost of the training courses in colleges of further education. That is mainly because trainees are taking more two-term rather than one-term courses than was expected.
This gives me an opportunity to mention how we are expanding construction training under the training opportunity scheme. By the end of May nearly 3,950 places should be available for GTCs in the construction trades, and the number of places will have been increased by nearly 40 per cent. in 17 months. By the end of this year about 4,200 places should be available providing 7,200 trainees a year for the industry. The total this year is expected to be about 6,500 trainees. In addition, there are classes providing training at a skilled and semiskilled level available in employing establishments and colleges.
The Chancellor's announcement does not mean that we are less conscious of the importance of the training boards and their work. There has been no reduction in the training boards' current account which is derived almost entirely from the levy. It is merely a question of postponing the introduction of the new system by eight months as a contribution towards the reduction of public expenditure in 1974–75. It is still the intention to bring the commission into existence by about the beginning of 1974, although it may be rather longer before it is given formal powers in relation to approval of the boards' proposals on levy exemption and other matters.
The amendment seeks to provide a sum of not less than £35 million, to be adjusted each year to maintain its value at the 1973 level. On the question of

maintaining the 1973 value of the sum allocated, all the figures included in the public expenditure programmes are updated each year to take account of changes in price levels. That is standard practice. The sums allocated will therefore automatically be adjusted each year for price increases.
I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment. The hon. Member for Doncaster must concede that in Committee we have been fairly generous in meeting his requirements. I think he will concede also that we have managed to make a better Bill, and I acknowledge his help in this. We made our policy clear in the White Paper which was published with the Bill, and my right hon. Friend also made it clear on Second Reading.
The White Paper said:
It is intended that when the arrangements are in full operation up to £35 million in a full year should be available to the Commission for these purposes …".
That, of course, is different again from what was in the original consultative document, which the hon. Gentleman will remember was £25 million to £40 million, and, as I have already reminded the House, since then we have decided to retain the levy, although within a new framework. One must see the £35 million within the context of that retention of the levy.
I do not think it would be right for this Government, or indeed any Government, to commit a future Government in legislation to a minimum amount of expenditure on a particular service or area of activity. Obviously, the House has before it each year the estimate for the grant in aid to the commission with a provision for grants to the training boards, which will be clearly identifiable. The Bill gives the commission full power to make grants to boards under Section 5(1) of the Industrial Training Act 1964 as amended by the Bill, and I am sure this is the right way to deal with the question. Any limit, whether maximum or minimum, laid down in legislation might turn out to be inappropriate as time goes on because of changes in circumstances. No one can really say what the scale of this problem of training is going to be in 10 years' time or what scale of public funds might be needed for this purpose.
I think it would be better to stick to the sensible practice of not referring to any specific sum in the Bill. At the same time, I recognise how important it is that when the new system is introduced the training boards should know what sort of amounts may be available to them from public funds, and that is why the £35 million has been included.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, if for nothing else, for giving me the opportunity to set out what the position is in relation to the postponement, but I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 13

INTERPRETATION ETC.

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 16, line 23, leave out '(1) and Schedules 1 and 3' and insert 'and Schedule 1'.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

No. 18, in page 17, line 12, after 'section', insert '8(5A) or'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

No. 19, in page 17. line 16, at beginning insert:
'(5) No order shall be made in pursuance of section 7(3A)(c) of this Act unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Clause 15

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 17, line 41, leave out 'paragraph 3' and insert 'paragraphs 3 and 4'.
This is a technical amendment which achieves the effect that certified copies of or extracts from records of the commission or agencies which are in the Public Record Office should be admissible as evidence without further proof in the courts of Northern Ireland as well as Great Britain.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

MODIFICATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING ACT 1964

Mr. Booth: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 23, line 2, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 61, in page 23, line 4, at end insert:
'(i) may inspect the place of employment of any person being trained in the industry if the employer of that person is subject to, or exempted from the levy specified in section 4 below'.

Mr. Booth: The amendment is necessary in the present construction of the Bill to make way for Amendment No. 61, which, if accepted by the House, would give any industrial training board the right to inspect places of employment of people in the industry with which the board is concerned. That is to say, it would give the engineering training board the right to examine and inspect engineering factories, and the shipbuilding training board the right to examine shipyards, and so on.
It may seem surprising that such a right was not included in the Industrial Training Act 1964. However, it must be accepted that the reason may be that industrial training boards as they were envisaged in 1964 were regarded by firms as having a substantial power to determine levy to be paid for industrial training.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Employment and Training Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Booth: It was expected that any employer seeking to persuade a training board of the quality of his training schemes, with a view to his being exempted from levy, would be willing to allow the board or its officers to examine his premises, even though he might not positively welcome the board's doing so.
However, the Bill, which makes substantial amendments to the 1964 Act, has cast considerable doubt upon the extent to which training boards will in future exercise a right to determine levy. The Bill amends Section 4 of the 1964 Act by adding subsection (2A):
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring the Minister to make a levy order in a case in which he considers it inexpedient to make one; and the Minister shall not make a levy order in pursuance of any proposals under the said section 7 unless''.
The Bill then lays down strict qualifications, ending with a suggestion that the levy may be either severely limited or subject to an almost unlimited discretion in the Minister.
The position now is not what it was in 1964. Whereas in 1964 one could not conceive of a case in which an employer would not allow an industrial training board to examine his premises if the board was responsible for training in the industry, the same presumption cannot necessarily be made now.
The position is unclear, in that the determination of the levy in the Bill is left almost entirely at the Minister's discretion, on the one hand. On the other hand, there is provision in the 1964 Act for a tribunal to determine questions of the appropriate level of levy and the question whether a levy should be paid.
We should consider the position of an industrial training board operating in present circumstances without a statutory right to examine the premises of a firm, if the board had to go before the tribunal. The levy board representative might say "We take the view that this firm should pay such-and-such a levy." If he were asked "Have you seen the training scheme in the works? "he could answer" No, I have not been allowed to do so." That might be taken to indicate a certain measure of bloody-mindedness on the firm's part. The training board representative would not be able to claim any expertise from having examined the scheme, whereas the employer's representative, from his access to the premises, could make that claim.
It seems to me that it is necessary for the normal operation of an industrial training board for it to be able to examine the industry for which it is responsible with a view to setting up training schemes and the furtherance of training. There is

this additional consideration now brought about by the change in the levy position and the doubt hovering over the position of the tribunal. However, I do not wish these other considerations to influence or to be set against the major consideration of the industrial training boards doing their job properly. That is why I have framed the amendment so as to make the power to inspect relate to Section 2(1) of the 1964 Industrial Training Act.
If the House accepts the amendment, a board will have the right to inspect the industry with which it is concerned for the purpose of encouraging the adequate training of persons employed or intending to be employed in that industry. The other benefits that it may have will be incidental, and I hope that any fears existing on the other scores to which I have referred will not be realised.
It is almost self-evident that there is a very serious responsibility resting upon industrial training boards to know fully the premises and service areas in which those for whose training the board is responsible have to undergo that training, and that it should be the statutory responsibility of that board to inspect those premises.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment. It would be a mistake. It is both undesirable and unnecessary.
We should be extremely cautious before starting to create a fairly wide-ranging right of entry into private or commercial premises. I quite see that there is nothing sinister in the hon. Gentleman's objective, which is, I suppose, that he wants firms inspected. Incidentally, even if I were to accept the amendment I should prefer to see the word "visited" rather than "inspected" because it is less offensive to many people.
The object of such visits presumably would be to see whether firms were worthy of exemption under the new system. I do not believe that that would be necessary in any event. If a firm refuses to allow the board's representatives to visit it—which in itself would be very unlikely if it applied voluntarily for exemption—assuming that the board cannot find other means of satisfying itself about the training arrangements there, it will not issue an exemption certificate or


make a grant. It is better that the board should not have the power to inspect but that it should have power to refuse to make grant or, subject to appeal, to refuse to issue a certificate.
There could be difficulties here. It is possible, for example, to imagine circumstances in which a firm has commercial secrets where, clearly, the right to privacy ought to be respected. In that sort of case the employer will have to accept that his refusal may lead to a loss of exemption if the board cannot satisfy itself in any other way that his training arrangements are adequate. But it will be possible to write into the exemption criteria the right to pay visits to premises in order to look round them.
In all the circumstances, the amendment is both undesirable and unnecessary.

Mr. Bishop: I do not wish to detain the House long in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) on Amendments Nos. 53 and 61.
The Minister's reply is completely unsatisfactory. I think that the amendments commend themselves to the House.
The Minister said that there is power to refuse a certificate. I presume that if the employer does not allow his premises to be inspected, so that the board may be satisfied about the conditions, there would be refusal of a certificate. But, even so, there still must be power to inspect the premises where training is taking place.
I am not clear whether the Bill gives power to inspect. For the board to be satisfied on this matter inspection will have to take place, and refusal to allow inspection would apparently mean refusal of a certificate.
The proposed paragraph (h) to Section 2(1) of the Act refers to the provision of
advice about training connected with the industry".
This is essential. So is the requirement that the amendment seeks to put into the Bill that, apart from the training, the premises, equipment and other facilities essential to training should be open to inspection. Surely on these grounds alone the amendment is justified.
Many of us felt that the Minister would get up and say that he could accept the amendment. We all know from our experience and knowledge of industrial training and training boards that standards vary considerably from place to place. If the Minister has not got the powers that we seek to give him, surely those who are providing the industrial training, which is essential to younger people, and retraining, which is necessary because of technological changes, will not be able to provide the standard of industrial training and retraining which is so desirable. I think it would help to raise the standards of training to have the right to inspect premises and thereby gain some idea of the equipment and facilities being provided. It would make bigger demands on those who in the past have been lagging behind with industrial training and apprenticeship schemes. It is essential to make greater demands on those who provide the training so that the standards of education and training in future are higher than in the past. I hope that the Minister can still see his way clear to reconsider his reply.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not want to do an injustice to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop). I think he may have come into the Chamber after I had begun to reply, because he appears to have missed the burden of a good deal of what I said.
One of the objects of a levy exemption scheme is to cause firms to move towards better training.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the right to inspect is written into the Bill. No, it is not. However, the Bill specifically provides, in Schedule 2, in a new Section 4B(2)(a), that the board can make it a condition of issue of the certificate that it should be able to inspect the training arrangements if it wishes to do so. I do not think that the board will wish to do so in every case. If a firm refuses to allow the board to visit its premises, the board is free, subject to appeal, to revoke the certificate. However, it does not, and should not, have an enforceable right of inspection as such.
I think that I have now answered the hon. Gentleman's point. I think, in fairness to him, that he missed what I said earlier.

Mr. Bishop: I heard the Minister say that, but I thought it was a one-sided way of putting it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. It is not in order for the hon. Member to make a second speech on the amendment. If he intends to make a short intervention, that will be all right.

Amendment negatived.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 24, line 25, at end insert:

'(1A) In section 4(2) of the Act, after the words "to proposals" there shall be inserted the words "In respect of a levy which have been".'

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 36, in page 37 line 29, after 'proposals', insert:
'in respect of a levy which have been'.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The amendment is a technical one which makes it clear that a levy order gives effect to levy proposals and not to any other proposals. The second amendment makes a consequential change to the keeling Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Robert Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 24, line 27, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 25, in page 25, line 15, at end insert:
'(2B) The Minister may, in making a levy order in pursuance of any proposals under the said section 7, make it with such exemptions or further exemptions for any employers or class of employers as he may, after consultation with the Commission, consider appropriate'.

Mr. Taylor: Most hon. Members will be aware of individual companies which claim to train with exceeding efficiency and still finish up as net losers on the levy grant system. My hon. Friend will, I believe, recall that over the last few years I have sent to him and to his predecessor numerous examples of companies which fall within that category. Indeed, on at least two occasions the industrial training board concerned has admitted that the courses are of no use to the firms in question, but it has pleaded as an excuse for demanding the levy the fact that it is statutorily obliged to do so.
After the enactment of the Bill, the position for a number of these firms will, as I understand it, be the same because, as the Bill stands, there are two grounds for exclusion from levies. The first is on the ground that the pay roll of the firm does not reach the minimum laid down by the industrial training board, and we are to a certain extent legislating in a vacuum because we do not know what those minimum payrolls will be. Certain industrial training boards—notably the Engineering Industry Training Board—are moving in a progressive way to a high cut-off figure, but other boards—notably the Construction Industry Training Board —persist with a low cut-off figure and demand a levy from very small firms.
The other criterion which the Bill lays down for exemption will be rules approved by the industrial training boards. Here again we are legislating in a vacuum, because we do not know what those rules will be. It is true that my hon. Friends will have the opportunity to approve those rules, or to withhold his approval of them, but the point that I want to emphasise is that there will be

no flexibility once those rules have been approved. In other words, any firm with a payroll above the minimum and which does not meet the specific rules of a relevant training board will still be forced to pay the levy irrespective of whether it is generally agreed that its training reaches a high standard. It may be a firm which is unique in its manufacturing processes or has some other individual characteristic which is not catered for by its industrial training board.
The two amendments will have the effect of giving the Minister some flexibility, and I suggest that that is of the greatest importance in the context of the speeches that we have heard tonight about the £35 million to be made available to the training boards and for the training services. Without the amendment, there will undoubtedly be many appeals involving legal expense and the training boards will have to defend their demands for levies. This will eat into the £35 million which is to be made available.
I am not dogmatic in my request that firms should automatically be excluded. All I ask is that my hon. Friend should take unto himself the opportunity to say that a particular firm is trading in a satisfactory fashion, although it does not meet the set of rules laid down by the industrial training board, and that it should be excluded from the levy.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not say that he already has that power, because I have read the Bill carefully on this point. Although he has the power to amend regulations, once those regulations are firm I do not believe that the Bill allows particular specialised firms to be excluded from levy payment, although such exclusion is well justified by the enthusiasm that those firms put into their training.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I entirely accept the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor) about the number of times that he has pressed me about his fears regarding certain firms. But his fears are groundless. He is right when he says that we do not know at this moment what the minimum payrolls will be. This matter is still under discussion. Equally, he is right to say that we do not know


what the rules for exemption will be. We do not know what the criteria will be for every board at this stage: they may vary.
What we do know is that there will have to be published criteria; that may, of course, be of considerable help to him and to the firms whose interests he is always so ready to defend. In Committee I gave some idea of the sort of suggestions, which might form acceptable criteria, that the Department had sent to the boards. Our suggestions included questions like
Are there appropriate means for identifying a firm's training needs? Is there a plan for providing training to meet identified needs? Is training carried out in accordance with the plan?
I think that the House will agree that, given criteria like those, it should be possible for almost any firm which provides proper training to secure exemption.
I accept that it is possible that a firm may have no training needs at all and that such firms should not be barred from gaining exemption from levy.
My hon. Friend was also right to point out that, if a firm is dissatisfied with a board's refusal to grant exemption, the Bill provides for a right of appeal, first to the board concerned, and then, if the firm wants to take it further, to an independent body. So there are some safeguards.
There is one aspect of my hon. Friend's amendment about which I should be unhappy. He has written to me about this. I acknowledge his motives in suggesting it, which are of the purest. However, I certainly could not accept an amendment which would enable the Secretary of State, after consulting the commission, to include in the levy order the exemption of particular firms or classes of firms independent of any proposals made by the board concerned and without having to consult the board. That is not the direction in which we should move. It is all very well to send the proposals back, but it would be quite wrong for a Secretary of State of any party, to be in a position to exempt particular firms as well as classes of firms from levy. I think that the House would feel that a Secretary of State, of any party, ought not to have almost completely unfettered power to exempt a

particular firm as he considered appropriate. The suggestion for exemption ought to go through the usual channels. I should not like to go along with my hon. Friend on that point.
I hope that I have been able to give my hon. Friend some sort of reassurance and that he will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Robert Taylor: My hon. Friend knows my enthusiasm on this subject. Although his explanation meets my case in some way, I should still prefer, if there were any support, to press the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move. Amendment No. 23, in page 24, line 36, leave out 'that section' and insert 'the said section 7'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient for the House to take Amendment No. 37, in page 37, line 41, leave out 'that section' and insert 'the said section 7'.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: These are simply minor drafting amendments to put right a reference in the text to Section 4 of the 1964 Act. The reference there should be to Section 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 25, line 5, leave out 'one' and insert 'one and a half'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to take Amendment No. 26, in page 25, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

Mr. Walker: I shall seek to be as brief as possible, but I hope that the House will not assume that the brevity of my remarks somehow detracts from the very great importance and significance that we attach to the amendments.
The Minister will be familiar with the fundamental arguments because in Committee we had a similar duo of amendments. But in Committee we sought to raise the ceiling of 1 per cent. which the Minister is now imposing on the levy to 2 per cent. We hope that what we are now advancing, 1½ per cent., is a reasonable compromise between what we


sought and the position to which the Government have dogmatically adhered. This accords with the desire that has been represented to the Government by the TUC.
Obviously we cannot talk of the levy level without referring to what we discussed earlier, the £35 million which the Government are allocating for administrative training board costs, key training activities and several other activities. The imposition of this 1 per cent. ceiling on levy inevitably diminishes the income of the boards. I am not falling into the trap to which the Minister drew attention and assuming, that a certain percentage reduction in levy means a corresponding reduction in income to the board which is available for training purposes. It does not. But the Minister will equally accept that the imposition of a 1 per cent. ceiling diminishes the income to the boards and the amount of money available, broadly, for training purposes, and that amount is not offset by the £35 million. I hope that the Minister will not quarrel with that, not-withstanding his earlier remarks.
Added to this, however, we have the very dramatic extension of scope for exemption that the Minister is now providing. They are, perhaps, not new principles, but nevertheless it is a very substantial increase in degree in the scope for exemption, both for those whose training needs may be considered adequate in the view of the board and the employer and because of the extension of exemption for small firms. Therefore, we see a very dramatic reduction, for all these reasons, of the income of boards for training purposes if the proposals in the Bill remain unaltered. We seek to offset that by advocating 1½ per cent. instead of 1 per cent.
But there is also another reason. The levy/grant system has been repeatedly referred to as the carrot and stick concept. It is a positive and a negative incentive. There has been universal acceptance since the Industrial Training Act came into full operation that the permanent shift in attitudes of industry to training to which the Government have referred has been brought about much more by the stick than by the carrot. The stick has been much more influen-

tial in bringing about that shift in attitudes and we think that the size of the stick should be maintained. The Government, however, are deliberately diminishing its size and it is for that reason amongst others that we should keep in the word "permanent". Only time will tell how permanent it is or will be, and I have strong reservations.
Perhaps I might now turn to our proposed exemption under subsection (4). Its purpose is that the Minister has power in certain special circumstances to breach the 1 per cent. ceiling, yet those circumstances require that there should be an affirmative resolution of both Houses rather than use of the negative resolution procedure as is written into the 1964 Act. Hon. Members know what a formidable hurdle that is. It will be only in the most extreme cases and exceptional circumstances that the Minister is likely to come to Parliament, knowing as he does that he must argue his case through both Houses particularly in the teeth of the reactionary opposition of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor) and hon. Members who tend to share his views on industrial training. The Government should think again about this. I hope that in reply the Minister will be more sympathetic than he was in Standing Committee.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am sorry I cannot be sympathetic as the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) wishes but I must be consistent. We have covered most of this ground before. As he said we have cantered over a good deal of it in Standing Committee and most of the objections which I raised to his amendment on that occasion seeking 2 per cent. still stand in respect of his present proposal of 1½ per cent. I cannot change my mind.
His suggestion is that the imposition of this as a normal levy limit taken with the new levy exemption arrangements will result in a diminution of the boards' activities. There are three points I must make. Only a small number of boards have a levy above 1 per cent., and the trend has been to move down to 1 per cent. and then below. Certainly the indications which we have so far suggest that more and more boards are reducing the size of their levy still further. When


the new arrangements come into force on 1st April 1975 the £35 million will be available to the commission to take care of the boards' administrative costs, key training grants and to cover the groups which are not covered by boards now. That will be there and it is additional. It is not our policy that the boards should exempt firms whose training is not adequate. We should certainly look askance at a situation where Exchequer funds were set aside in order to support training which could reasonably be secured through the criteria for exemption. The general principle on exemption should be that the boards grant exemption to employers if they are satisfied that a firm is carrying out training adequate to its needs.
10.30 p.m.
After very extensive consultation we accepted last year that the correct approach was to provide that levy exemption should enable boards to fulfil their responsibilities for securing and improving standards of training in industry and to do so in a way which enabled firms with sufficient training to avoid the administrative complexities which have become associated with the levy/grant system.
We believe that pressure for good training will be maintained by the criteria which the boards will set for exemption. These will relate to what a firm can be expected to be doing in order to carry out training adequate to its needs. The criteria ought to reflect the good training standards which the boards will have worked out with their industries, and the process can be expected to start at any time.
Standards of good training rise over a period, so the exemption system can be used to exert pressure for improved standards. It is right that standards for firms qualifying for exemption should be raised. The exemption is a new tool which the boards will use to renew pressure for good training.
The system we are adopting was given full thought and consideration and will get rid of much of the detailed paper work which was proving a positive hindrance to training itself, not to say the firms. It will enable the boards' advisers who go visiting firms to use their time in talking about training and not

about money, as they so often have had to do in the past, and that is as it should be.
As we have said over and over again, I do not believe that it is necessary to provide in normal circumstances for levies above one per cent. Having said that, however, I stick to the position I maintained in Committee—that in exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State should have the power to impose a levy of over one per cent. As I have said, I do not think that it would be right to attempt to forecast what those exceptional circumstances might be, but one example could be where there was a widespread falling-off in an industry's training effort. Because such levies would be exceptional, it is right that they should be subject to consideration by Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 25, line 39, leave out 'employed' and insert
'needed to carry on the activities which are or are expected to be carried on'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 38, 39 and 40.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: These amendments put right a flaw in the provision concerning exemptions which have come to light since the Committee stage. The purpose is to ensure that exemption proposals and exemption certificates themselves must take into account the number of trained people an employer is expected to need at a particular establishment. Thus, he would be entitled to a certificate in respect of an establishment if he were training enough people to meet his needs, and in accordance with the criteria he could be refused one if he were not—in other words, if he was relying excessively on recruiting already-trained men. This is an anti-poaching measure.
We all agree that it would be absurd if a board found itself obliged to give exemption to a firm which was giving adequate training to existing employees but no training to meet its future needs for skilled people, relying instead on poaching other people's trained men.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 30 in page 26, line 31, leave out 'employed' and insert
'needed to carry on the activities which are or are expected to be carried on'.

No. 31, in page 26, line 48, leave out 'employed' and insert
'needed to carry on the activities which are or are expected to be carried on'.

No. 32, in page 27, line 14, leave out 'of its issue' and insert
'on which it comes into force'.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 27, line 22, at end insert:
'(3) The Commission shall not approve proposals for the issue of certificates where it is not satisfied that representatives of the categories of employees affected have been consulted before the application was submitted'.
This amendment is founded on the principle that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and those who eat mostly of the pudding of training are the employees. If training is skimped, their expectations, jobs, careers and prospects will suffer. We also found the amendment on the idea that training is probably as good as one pays for and that good training is founded on the financial provision. Therefore, employees are vitally affected by proposals for the withdrawal of the levy from their firm. With that end in view, employees should be entitled to have a say in the exemption or otherwise of their firm from the levy.
My right hon. and hon. Friends are astounded by their moderation. There is a spirit of workers' participation abroad which is even lapping around the foundations of the present Government. But we are not asking for workers' control or workers' participation. We are not asking for their consent and for the withdrawal of the levy. All we are asking for is that employees in a firm from which the levy will be withdrawn should be entitled to be consulted.
Just as in the first debate today we had occasion to refer to The Times, as we near the end of our debate this evening we can refer to The Times, again. We are promised on the front page of The Times today that we shall have a Green Paper on workers' participation by no less a person than the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I gather that the right hon.

Gentleman is travelling to Europe and back to seek inspiration. Why he could not get the same sort of inspiration from his fellow-countryman in the TUC I cannot imagine.
That is not all. We are told that the message of particpation has even been received by the Secretary of State for Employment. Apparently he is now beavering away in the background with an enthusiasm which is terrible in its own wonderful way to behold. We are told that he has been exploring the options, whatever that might mean. We hope that he finds them. He has suggested that there should be three lines of advance in participation—namely, in control, in management going beyond the trade unions' tactical rôle and in ownership. I hope that he takes all lines of advance simultaneously if necessary. It may be thought by some that it will be a considerable improvement to have the right hon. Gentleman going in only three ways at once instead of his normal state of mind.
We are not asking for exploration of the options or for suggested lines of advance. We want the Government to signalise their impending conversion to workers' participation by accepting the amendment. In that way workers will be consulted when it is proposed that the levy shall be withdrawn from their firm.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I had not realised that we were going to get into a sort of competition as to who could be keenest about workers' participation. It is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who the hon. Member for Lewisham. North (Mr. Moyle) seemed to infer had some form of reluctance, is a pioneer of such participation. He has probably been advocating share-ownership longer than any hon. Member. He has done so with some success. I must rebut any suggestion that he is not taking a keen interest in this matter.

Mr. Prentice: Follow his example.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: But the amendment is not about share-ownership, nor is it a correctly worked out and considered plan such as that which my right hon. Friend advances on share-ownership. Of course, we are all being out-bidden by the Liberal Party. The right


hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has suddenly discovered the Code of Practice, which some of us have seen before. The right hon. Gentleman has put down a Ten Minutes Rule Bill. If ever there was an example of stealing your clothes while you are wearing them. that must be it.
While I naturally appreciate what the hon. Member for Lewisham, North has said—this is a matter which was discussed in Committee in perhaps a rather oblique way—it would be wrong to rush into this proposition in a Bill of this kind. I accept the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is a wide matter. The proposition that an employer must consult representatives of his employees before he submits an application for exemption is an idea with which I have some sympathy. I do not think that it can be written into the Bill. However, it is certainly true that employers should consult their employees about training.
10.45 p.m.
The point is made specifically in the Code of Industrial Relations Practice, which says
managements should initiate and accept primary responsibility for these policies"—
employment policies, which include training.
But they should be developed in consultation or negotiation, as appropriate, with employee representatives.
The Code of Practice and I are both in sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. But when it comes to including it in legislation why should we pick out the employer who wants to apply for exemption and require him to consult without requiring other employers to consult about their training arrangements? The need for consultation about training may well be greatest in the very firm whose training arrangements are not good enough to enable it to apply for exemption.
I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's intention, as I am sure every hon. Member has, but the question is far too wide. Before we have concluded our diligent studies on worker participation, which are proceeding, it would be wrong to try to apply the only half- or quarter-ripe fruits of those studies to a Bill of

this kind, so I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Moyle: There is a wide gap between worker participation and share ownership. I hope that that will be borne in mind in the preparation of the Green Paper.
I am sorry to have embarrassed the hon. Gentleman by moving the amendment and showing the great gap between precept and practice in the Government's attitude. We await the Green Paper with bated breath, fairly confident that before the General Election there will be proposals for action afterwards that will never be carried out.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 27, line 27, at end insert:
';but for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this subsection a notice given in pursuance of this subsection shall be disregarded if the board subsequently informs the person to whom it was given that the notice is withdrawn'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Amendment No. 42, in page 40, line 29, at end insert:
';but for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this subsection a notice given in pursuance of this subsection shall be disregarded if the board subsequently informs the person to whom it was given that the notice is withdrawn'.
This is merely a question of tidying up loose ends. Under the Bill as drafted it would be possible for a training board to issue a notice revoking a firm's exemption certificate if in the board's opinion the firm had not complied with conditions that the board has specified in the certificate. For example, an exemption certificate may be issued with the condition that the firm concerned sends certain of its employees on a particular training course. The board may then decide to issue a notice revoking the certificate if the firm fails to do so. However, at a later date the board may conclude that the circumstances of the firm have changed in one way or another so that attendance at that course is no longer appropriate.
The amendments would permit the board to withdraw the revocation notice in those circumstances, and thus in effect restore the exemption certificate. It is


desirable that there should be this flexibility.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 32, line 29, after 'Act', insert
'in subsection (2) the words "ought not to have been assessed to the levy or" and "rescind, or as the case may be" shall be omitted, and'.
In Section 12(1) and (2) of the Industrial Training Act 1964 there is a requirement placed upon the Minister by regulations to establish
a tribunal or tribunals to determine appeals by persons assessed to any levy imposed under this Act".
There is also a provision under the section giving to those tribunals the right either to reduce or rescind the assessment of levy.
In the circumstances of the 1964 Act that may or may not have been a reasonable provision. I do not wish to argue that. I do want to argue that it is not a reasonable provision in the circumstances of this Bill. The Bill will require industrial training boards to pass some severe tests to obtain a minimal levy provision. If, having undergone all those tests and jumped all those hurdles, the board secures the right to a small levy within the industry in which it operates a person assessed to pay levy can go to the tribunal which has the right to wipe out that assessment for levy. The board will then receive nothing at all in respect of that firm.
The amendment would limit the power of the tribunal to reduce the assessment and would remove from it the power to wipe out the assessment. Without knowing the criteria which the tribunal will take into account it is difficult to make any prophecy about how far the work of the tribunal could place a limitation upon the effectiveness of the board.
Unless the Minister can give some fairly clear indication that he will, by regulation, tell tribunals the circumstances in which they should reduce or eliminate the assessment, I believe that the House would do well to accept the amendment and be wary about continuing the power of the 1964 Act. It would help if the Minister can give us this information and also tell us something about the manning

of the tribunals in these new circumstances. Without some assurance the House would do well to impose this limit on the tribunals.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment. The industrial tribunals will not have anything to do with appeals against refusals to grant exemption certificates.

Mr. Booth: I think the Minister must have misheard me. I was talking about assessment to levy.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I accept that the hon. Member did not mention exemption certificates. I wanted to get that on the record. But appeals on the straightforward factual questions of whether the amount of levy has been correctly calculated, or whether the firm is in the industry covered by the levy order, or whether the firm is not liable to levy because the levy order for example exempts employers whose employees' emoluments are less than a specified amount—appeals on these matters will continue to go to the industrial tribunals.
If a levy assessment should never have been made for a particular firm, it is quite correct that the industrial tribunal should be able to rescind the levy assessment.
There are two cases in which the need to do this is likely to arise. The first is where the board considers that a firm falls within its industry as defined in the industrial training order but the firm disputes this. To take a hypothetical example—and I stress this is a purely hypothetical example—the Air Transport and Travel Board might consider that a ticket agency fell within its scope because it was partly involved in travel agency work, and issue it a levy assessment. However, if the travel agency part of its work was only the minor function, the firm would not legally come within the scope of the board. If the ticket agency appealed to the tribunal and the tribunal felt that the travel agency work was only a minor function, it is right that it should be able to quash the levy assessment.
Another example is where the levy order provides that small firms should be exempted from levy. It could happen


that a firm is small enough to be exempted but the board wrongly issues it with a levy assessment, possibly because the firm failed to supply the board with the right information about its payroll and the board had to make an estimate in the absence of better information. If the firm cannot persuade the board to withdraw the assessment, it is right that the firm should be able to appeal to the tribunal which could establish the facts and, if it transpired that the firm was small enough to justify exemption, could quash the assessment.
The effect of the amendment would not be that the employer who was wrongly assessed for levy would be unable to obtain justice. He would not be able to obtain justice from the industrial tribunal, which would be the simplest and best way of doing so, but would be able to seek a remedy in the courts.
I cannot advise acceptance of the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 33, line 20, after '(e)', insert:
'In paragraph 10, after "may" there shall be inserted "giving preference to persons with experience in the industry chiefly concerned"'.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in the recruitment of staff industrial training boards should give preference to people with experience of the industry with which the board is concerned. The philosophy behind the amendment—to use an industrial analogy—is that of an engineering firm which instead of employing a computer programmer and teaching him its brand of engineering so that he can write a computer programme for it sends one of its engineers to be taught how to programme computers.
The argument can be made both ways, but on balance it is better that people with knowledge of a particular industry should be trained in the administration and mechanics of the board's work than that people who are experienced in management and administration should be taught the attitudes, practices and working ways of the industry.
Some of the industrial training boards have been in existence long enough to have started to build their own equivalent of the Civil Service. I am the last to

deprecate the Civil Service, which is effective and efficient, but by its nature it can be divorced from a knowledge of industry. I should like to see far greater interchange.
In the work of industrial training boards, in their development and ability to adapt to changes within industry, it would be of considerable value if in recruiting staff preference were given to people with practical experience in the industry concerned.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: There is nothing to which I take exception in what the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) says. It is good common sense, but it is unnecessary to write it into the Bill. The boards will realise this for themselves, and I am sure that in the main they will recruit people of the kind the hon. Gentleman has in mind. It would be unnecessary and undesirable to place any restriction on the boards' discretion to appoint staff in their own way.
11.0 p.m.
In the last year I have had a good deal of experience of boards and I am convinced of their calibre, common sense, and ability to choose the people they want. I can take no exception to anything the hon. Gentleman said, but it would be unnecessary and rather fettering to the boards to write this provision into the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No 36, in page 37, line 29, after 'proposals', insert:
'in respect of a levy which have been'.

No. 37, in page 37, line 41, leave out 'that section' and insert 'the said section 7'.

No. 38, in page 38, line 48, leave out 'employed' and insert:
'needed to carry on the activities which are or are expected to be carried on'.

No. 39, in page 39, line 37, leave out 'employed' and insert:
'needed to carry on the activities which are or are expected to be carried on'.

No. 40, in page 40, line 4, leave out 'employed' and insert:
'needed to carry on the activities which are or are expected to be carried on'.

No. 41, in page 40, line 17, leave out- 'of its issue' and insert:
'on which it comes into force'.

No. 42, in page 40, line 29, at end insert:
'; but for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this subsection a notice given in pursuance of this subsection shall be disregarded if the board subsequently informs the person to whom it was given that the notice is withdrawn'.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 48, line 40, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 44 and Amendment No. 46.

Mrs. Fenner: I have the full support of the agricultural industry and its training board in moving this amendment, which gives the board access to essential information about the industry it serves. We are here concerned with the board's access to information collected under Section 78 of the Agriculture Act 1947, more generally known as the Agricultural Census. We propose a limited extension to the access which the board, again with the industry's agreement, has to this information so as to ensure that it enjoys equivalent facilities to other industrial training boards as regards the availability of statistical information so necessary for planning and research.
Under paragraph 1(d) of Part III of Schedule 2 to the Bill, Sections 4 and 6 of the Industrial Training Act, which enable industrial training boards to impose levies and require returns of information from employers, are not to apply to the Agricultural Training Board. As the main reason for a statutory return—the levy—does not apply to the Agricultural Training Board, and as the kind of information which the board needs in planning and research to do its job is already available in the census, we concluded—the industry fully agreed with this—that it would be both unnecessary and undesirable to ask farmers to complete two separate returns embodying the same information. That is why the Bill seeks to remove from the Agricultural Training Board the power to issue a statutory return under Section 6 of the Industrial Training Act.
But we cannot deprive the board of access to data necessary to plan its

courses and to carry out research. The effect of the amendment is to give the board access to the kind of data which it could obtain under Section 6, and it avoids the duplication of paper work for farmers to which I have already referred. To a limited extent already some census information can be disclosed to the board under Section 80(c) of the Agriculture Act 1947 which I am advised is confined in practice to the name and address of owner or occupier, the number and kind of livestock, and the area of crops and grass and of rough grazing. Information on the number of workers employed, the acreages and types of crops and above all the type of machinery could not be provided.
If the board is to carry out its task effectively, we are convinced that it must have access to data of this kind. For example, if the board proposed to provide farmworkers with a course in the safe use of a particular machine it would need to know, not only which farmers employed workers, but also which of the holdings were equipped with the particular type of machine concerned. The information to be made available under this amendment is of a non-fiscal nature and the data supplied would be disclosed to the board only on application and for planning and research purposes.
It is with the unqualified agreement of the industry that we ask the House to authorise us to disclose limited informaion in these limited circumstances and for those limited purposes.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 49, line 10, at end insert:
'Disclosure of information to Agricultural Training Board.
2B. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State may, for the purpose of assisting the Agricultural Training Board in planning and carrying out activities (including research) connected with the functions conferred on it by section 2(1)(a) of this Act, disclose to the Board any information about—
(a) the kind of crops grown on any land and the areas of land on which crops of any kind are grown; and
(b) the number and description of persons employed on any land and employed on disposing of the produce of any land; and
(c) the kinds of machinery used on any land,
which has been furnished to him in pursuance of section 78 of the Agriculture Act 1947'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 49, line 11, at beginning insert:
'(1) In section 3(1) of the Act after the words "section 2" there shall be inserted the words "or by virtue of section 2A"'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 47.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: These are very minor amendments. As the Bill stands, the Agricultural Training Board can only delegate to committee functions which it has under Section 2 of the 1964 Act. But the board may also under new Section 2A have certain functions connected with agricultural training which it carries out on behalf of the Agricultural Ministers. These amendments empower it to delegate to a committee any such functions which it may have by virtue of new Section 2A.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 52, line 44, at end insert:
'Disclosure of information to Agricultural Training Board.
2B. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State may, for the purpose of assisting the Agricultural Training Board in planning and carrying out activities (including research) connected with the functions conferred on it by section 2(1)(a) of this Act, disclose to the Board any information about—
(a) the kind of crops grown on any land and the areas of land on which crops of any kind are grown; and
(b) the number and description of persons employed on any land and employed on disposing of the produce of any land; and
(c) the kinds of machinery used on any land,
which has been furnished to him in pursuance of section 78 of the Agriculture Act 1947'.—[Mrs. Fenner.]

No. 47, in page 53, line 6, after 'section 2', insert:
'or by virtue of section 2A'.

No. 48, in page 54, line 27, leave out Schedule 3.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Schedule 5

REPEALS

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 59, line 17,

column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 2(1)(f)'.
This again is a minor technical amendment which does not make any substantive alteration to the Bill.
In Committee, Section 2(1)(f) was added to the list of repeals in the 1964 Act in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2, Part 1, but the necessary consequential amendment to add it to Schedule 5 was omitted. The amendment remedies that accidental omission.

Mr. Harold Walker: This amendment marks the close of this further stage in the Bill's progress. I only regret that the hon. Gentleman was unable to say that he was making yet another amendment in response to our pleas in Committee. We appreciate the fact that he, along with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, has shown that he listened to some of our arguments in Committee. It is unfortunate that he did not listen to more of them. However, it is to be hoped that the Bill will return to us from another place showing that the Government have listened to us more carefully than they have until now.
I wish the Bill a fair wind and Godspeed.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Perhaps I may be allowed to express my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for his assistance. I am sorry that I have not been able to accommodate him in every way. But I have the entrenched feeling that that may be for the benefit of the Bill. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Orders of the Day — HANDICAPPED CHILDREN (SPECIAL SCHOOL PLACES)

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: We have heard a great deal this year about the problem of children handicapped as a result of their mothers taking thalidomide tablets. On the day of the great debate in this Chamber, I visited a school on the borders of my constituency which specialises in helping handicapped children. In the course of that visit, I came to realise that although there is and has been a great deal of discussion about the problems of the thalidomide children there is a gigantic army of handicapped children in our country many of whom have problems which compare in their horror with those of the thalidomide children but which do not get the same discussion, the same coverage, or the same attention.
I want to talk about the problem of the son of a constituent of mine, Christopher Capes. I want to talk about his problem in particular terms, and as an example of the large problem that exists in this country and with which we are not dealing in a very satisfactory manner.
Christopher Capes is now 11 years old. When he was 2½ his parents realised that he was retarded, and he was taken to hospital. In 1967, when he was 5, he was transferred to a selection unit and there a first doctor advised that a residential school was desirable and necessary.
A year later Mr. Capes received a notice under Section 34(4) of the Education Act informing him that his son had been classified as a member of category G and that
arrangements will therefore be made for the child's admission to a suitable residential school as soon as a vacancy arises.
A later letter said that that vacancy was not likely to arise until Christopher was 7.
One year later, in 1969, Christopher was examined by a third doctor, Dr. Weiss of the Steiner School, who said that he was a suitable child for admission to a Steiner school and that he should be admitted as soon as there was a vacancy.
In March 1970, by which time Christopher was 8, he had to be admitted to hospital since he was causing great physical damage to himself by punching himself on his cheeks until they bled, and in other ways. This was two years after the parents had been informed that Christopher should be educated in a residential school. Again, a fourth doctor said that he must be admitted to a residential school as soon as possible.
In 1971 the parents had an interview with a representative of the chief education officer of Enfield, and after that there was an ominous silence.
In October 1972 Mr. Capes came to see me. The last correspondence that he had had from the chief education officer was pretty specific. In a letter dated 7th June 1971, the chief education officer simply said:
… I have now heard from the Camphill-Rudolf Steiner-Schools that they cannot fore-see when a suitable vacancy for Christopher will arise. The situation appears to be that the class for Christopher's age group is overcrowded. There is, however, a chance that a parallel class in the age group might be started within the next two years".
That class has not yet been formed.
Therefore, the position is that over a period of nine years four doctors have said that this child should have residential education and everyone is in agreement. Indeed, the chief education officer of Enfield classified him as being a person in category G. It was at that point that I was contacted by Christopher's parents.
I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and to the chief education officer of Enfield, both of whom not only promised to look into the matter, but wrote conciliatory and would-be helpful letters. But the plain fact is that nearly a year after that Christopher is still at home, is still not receiving the education that everyone admits he needs, and is five years older than on the day that it was first admitted he needed this treatment.
The plight of Christopher and of his parents is tragic. One can imagine the chaos that his condition is causing in the home. Indeed, it is causing or is threatening to cause the breakdown of the family.
I have since taken an active interest in the problems and education of handicapped children. The subject of this debate is Christopher as a particular case


against the background of the general problem of special places for educating handicapped children—I make no apology for devoting quite a long time to this specific case—and if we examine his case we find that he is an extreme example of a problem about which our society knows very little indeed.
At present, there are 112,000 children in special classes, and it seems to be widely accepted that the number who should be receiving special treatment could be between 10 and 15 times that figure.
The situation is getting worse. In January 1969, there were 13,000 children waiting for places, of whom 5,650 had been waiting for more than a year. There are now 14,900 children waiting for places, of whom more than 6,000 have been waiting for more than a year. Of that total, a high proportion are in the category of educationally sub-normal—five out of six, approximately.
Immediately one starts to take an interest in the subject one runs into the fact that not very much is known about the size of the problem and also that it is very badly defined, and here we come to the heart of the matter. Mr. Segal, the President of the Guild of Teachers of Backward Children, said in a most interesting article in Where in May/June 1972:
The problems are as yet insufficiently well defined to enable training objectives and processes to be firmly and confidently established.
We are not sure of the size of the problem. We do not know how the problem should be defined. We are working on 10 categories of handicap which were defined in 1959 which have been overtaken by medical and scientific knowledge and by events.
The conclusion to which one is inevitably drawn is that what is needed is what the Conservative Party promised when we were in opposition, namely, a commission of inquiry into the whole problem. One fact which comes over very clearly as one studies the problem is that we do not have sufficient data and we do not know enough about how many children need help. The problem is not well defined, and therefore we do not know how to set about giving the help that is needed.
Other problems immediately spring to mind, but I do not want to go on about them. There is a complete lack of trained teachers, but that is hardly surprising. We do not know the size of the problem. and therefore it is not possible to make provision for an adequate supply of teachers. We know that local authorities are not seconding teachers to take the additional training that is necessary. In a recent survey of 31 local authorities. it was discovered that only 150 teachers a year were being seconded for special training—one teacher for every 184,000 pupils in those authorities—and yet we know that the number of children who need care is anything up to 10 per cent. of the number of children in schools.
There is a real and desperate need, and I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will not deal only with the specific problem of Christopher Capes who is a very sad and very serious example of a national problem. If one considers the problem of Christopher Capes, and my own experience, over 18 months, of trying to help, one sees a pattern emerging. At first, there is an enthusiasm from my hon. Friend's Department and from the education department in Enfield, and one gets hopeful letters. Gradually one gets less hopeful letters, followed by silence, and then nothing happens.
I hope that my hon. Friend will examine the problem of Christopher Capes. His is a case in which specific help is needed now, but it is a warning to us of the huge problem that the country faces. It is a problem that we do not seem to be prepared to face, and one for which we are not making adequate provision.
I conclude with the cold medical note which the consultant psychiatrist sent to me. He said:
The consultant paediatrician in charge of this child recommended over two years ago that residential schooling was required urgently. Since then nothing has been done and there is a cumulative deleterious effect on the child and the whole family.
That letter could have been written about tens of thousands of families in our country. It is time we started to take action and to ensure that the Christopher Capes of this world get a fair chance to develop the very limited abilities with which they have been born.

11.21 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) on raising this issue. He has a special reputation in the House as a zealous constituency Member, and the fact that he has taken the trouble to raise this individual case is typical of his concern for his constituents.
There are, of course, wider issues involved than that of one child, however important every child is. Special school populations contain many more children with multiple disabilities than was once the case. There are two reasons for this, both of which are creditable in their way. First, medical science is now ensuring the survival of some children with severe physical handicaps who would previously have died in infancy. Second, ordinary primary and secondary schools are managing to cope satisfactorily with more children whose handicaps are comparatively mild and straightforward.
The boy whose sad circumstances have so tellingly been brought to the attention of the House tonight by my hon. Friend obviously presents acutely difficult problems of diagnosis and placement. Between 1964 and 1970, Christopher Capes was seen by a paediatrician and at least three psychiatrists. From those reports which I have seen it appears that none of them was confident about a diagnosis and their provisional views varied. Amentia, psychotic disturbance and autistic symptoms were all mentioned.
It may be helpful if I say a word about autistic symptoms. The three most characteristic features in early childhood are usually considered to be a difficulty in forming relationships with other people, severe retardation in the development of language, and ritualistic and obsessive behaviour. Christopher has, I understand, exhibited all these traits. It will easily be understood how behaviour involving destructiveness and interference with almost every ordinary activity, resulting in a need for constant attention throughout the day and also at night, imposes a terrible strain upon the parents and, indeed, upon the whole life of the family. Mr. and Mrs. Capes, and their elder son, have carried an immensely heavy burden for the last 10 years.
What help have they received from the Enfield local education authority? The local child guidance clinic recommended as long ago as 1968 that Christopher should certainly be placed away from home. As my hon. Friend said, admission to a Rudolf Steiner school was sought, but it could not do more than place him as an urgent case on its waiting list. The LEA approached several other schools for mentally handicapped or maladjusted children in 1969 and 1970, but could not obtain a place for him. In the meantime, Christopher had in 1967 been transferred from a junior training centre under the local health authority to a so-called "selection unit", whose function is partly diagnostic but where some handicapped children stay for longer and receive skilled teaching. He is still at that unit.
Two of the few encouraging documents about the case which have been sent to us by the Enfield authority were most perceptive reports written by the teacher in charge of the selection unit in 1968 and 1972. These showed that, along with some very bizarre behaviour, Christopher could be happy and co-operative at times and respond with warmth and affection. The last report said that altogether he seemed a much happier child than he was 18 months previously.
I understand that the authority has arranged short-term care for Christopher during holidays, once or twice a year, to give the parents a much-needed break. The fact remains, however—and I am almost as aware of it as my hon. Friend —that five years after a strong recommendation was made that Christopher should be boarded away from home, he is still at home.
What is my Department's attiude to this situation? We do not provide any schools, nor do we control placement in special schools run by local education authorities or voluntary bodies. No one can guarantee a suitable school place for a particular handicapped child, but what we are always willing to do, when asked, is to suggest some schools which seem worth approaching to see whether they can offer a vacancy. In this instance the Enfield authority never took the initiative in asking for the help of my Department. It was only when, in December of last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. West, in pursuit of his duties as


a Member of Parliament, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the case that we heard about it.
After obtaining medical and other reports from the authority, officials then wrote to the chief officer, in January 1973, suggesting eight schools which might conceivably take Christopher, though we were handicapped by the fact that the last report sent from the Enfield child guidance clinic was dated 1968. None of the schools could offer a place. It seemed pointless to make any further suggestions until an up-to-date medical report was available. The psychiatrist at the Enfield clinic agreed to see the boy and his parents for the purpose on 17th May, and I have seen his report this morning. The psychiatrist is now confident about a diagnosis of mental subnormality and recommends a boarding school for severely mentally handicapped children.
Now that we have this clear recommendation, we shall be glad to give all the advice and assistance we can, though there is a serious shortage of boarding places for the severely mentally handicapped. At least there are several options: boarding special schools, or independent schools, or hostels, run either by the education department or by the social services department of the local authority, where children can live while attending day special schools. Failing all else, there are hospitals, some of which have schools attached. If necessary, the co-operation of the social services department of the local authority must be sought in working out a residential solution.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of an inquiry. We do not need a general inquiry because we have had a whole series of particular investigations into various aspects of this subject. But I am aware that it is not only the situation of one child that we are discussing. We are discussing something of much wider importance to the community. I appreciate the fact that the parents of Christopher have agreed to the exposition of what to them must be painful facts in public in order to assist others who find themselves in a like position.
I should like to put the facts about this whole situation in perspective. Governments of all complexions are frequently

criticised because of the length of the waiting list for special school places.
In January 1972, the latest date for which figures are available, it was 14,900. What is often not realised is that, since 1955 at least, this figure has not gone down very much despite a substantial growth in the number of special school places provided. In the 15 years between 1955 and 1970 there was an increase of 31,800 children attending special schools, but the waiting list went down by only 2,400. This shows that the waiting list represents only the tip of the iceberg of need. Local education authorities tend to stop identifying more children as requiring special school places when their waiting list reaches a certain length.
Now, however, the Government have announced in the White Paper "Education: A Framework for Expansion" accelerated building programmes for special schools between 1972–73 and 1976–77, which should substantially reduce what we believe to be the genuine, as opposed to the announced, waiting list. The programmes should mean an average increase of some 30 per cent. in the annuol provision of new places in the next five years compared with the three previous years. Handicapped children should also benefit from the expansion of nursery education which is another prominent feature of the White Paper. Educationally sub-normal (severe) children will enjoy a high priority in the enlarged special school building programmes, including those in hospitals; and we hope that some 5,000 new places for these children, in addition to the replacement of unsuitable premises, should be started out of the resources announced in the White Paper.
The contents of building programmes, however, depend on the nature of the proposals for new schools that LEAs submit. A remarkable proportion of the school places available for children with severe multiple handicaps are provided by voluntary bodies. We would welcome more proposals for special schools of this kind from LEAs. There are, of course, exceptional circumstances over provision for ESN(Severe) children. Until April 1971, when they were brought into the educational system, these children were the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security. LEAs naturally had to use the premises of the


former training centres for the new special schools that were created overnight. The transfer has gone very smoothly, and I should like to pay tribute to the deep interest taken by LEAs in this new group of handicapped children and their readiness to make generous provision for the education which is now the children's due.
It has inevitably taken some time to assess the adequacy of the facilities available and so far the only boarding project submitted by an LEA for inclusion in a building programme has been a 12-place hostel providing for both groups of ESN children—medium and severe. This has been included in the 1973–74 design list, which will be issued in a week or ten days' time and will allocate resources totalling £11·5 million.
I very much hope that more proposals for boarding places for ESN (Severe) children will reach the Department from LEAs for the next design list. Increasingly, too, we want boarding special schools to be planned to meet regional needs, instead of—as still too often happens—children being sent to the other end of the country because there is no suitable school with a vacancy nearer home. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the House in December 1972 that she was considering promoting a series of regional conferences at which LEAs would be invited to consider, with the voluntary bodies concerned, the needs for all types of handicap within their region. My right hon.

Friend added that the timing of such conferences would depend, amongst other things, on the progress of the local government reorganisation. I would expect these conferences to stimulate the regional planning of increased boarding provision for ESN (Severe) children.
These are long-term aspirations which, when translated into bricks and mortar, will in the years to come benefit many children in great need. But Christopher, of course, requires help immediately, and, as I have said, we now have an up-to-date medical report on him, which we have just received, with clear-cut recommendations. I pledge to my hon. Friend that we will do all we can to help the Enfield authority to find a suitable placement for him and so provide relief for his hard-pressed parents. I assure my hon. Friend of my personal concern in this case.
I thank my hon. Friend for having raised this case, which affects a particular family so intimately and profoundly. I thank him, also, for his action tonight, which has drawn the attention of the House to the plight of many children in a similar position to that of Christopher. This short debate will, I think, be a valuable contribution to improving the lot of those who suffer from such severe handicaps and need the help of the community in overcoming them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Twelve o'clock.